GAYA BAKSH YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 540 · Decided: 08-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
GAYA BAKSH YADAV 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MAY 8, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, C.J., M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Customs Appraisers Se1vice, Class II recndtment Rules, 1961 : Rule 4A. 
Direct recruits and pro111otees-lnter se seniority betwee1t-Detennina-
tion of-Before and after Rules of 1961-Held: pre 1961 Rules-Their inter 
se seniority would be detennined by rotating quota system as per Mervyn 
Coutinho Case-Post 1961 Rules-Both direct recrnits and promotees would 
be entitled to seniority on basis of their continuous officiation--fnter se 
D seniority-Among direct recruits-Same as fixed by UPSC-Among 
promotees-From date of their promotion. 
The Government of India, Ministry of finance (Department of 
Revenue) issued a circular to the effect that the promotee Officers belong· 
E ing to the .Customs Appraisers Service Class II would be placed together 
on the basis of their continuous length of service and the direct recruits 
correspondingly on the basis of their inter se ranking assigned by the 
U.P.S.C. and then an all India list be prepared by rotating the officers in 
the two lists in the ratio of 1 : 1. The Central Administrative Tribunal 
F 
G 
quashed the aforesaid circular and directed the respondents to prepare 
afresh an All India combined list of Appraisers on the basis of continuous 
olliciation of the incumbent in the post of Appraisers. The Tribunal 
expressed no opinion as to on what principle the combined eligibility list 
should be prepared in such a contingency. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's 
judgment the appellants preferred the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. In the present case, the service was and is one i.e. All India 
Service 6f Appraisers. Prior to the Customs Appraisers Service Class II 
Recruitment Rules, 1961, 50% posts in the service were filled by direct 
H recruitment and the seniority of the selectees was fixed by the U.P.S.C. in 
540 
l 
' 
\ 
' 
c 
-#' 
GAYABAKSHYADAV v. U.0.1. [PUNCHHI,J.] 
541 
the order of selection. Inter se seniority amongst direct recruits was thus A 
a sealed event. That was the foundation. Entry into service by promotion 
was fortuitous dependent on the exercise by the departmental committees 
in the respective Customs Houses and the outcome thereof. Mervyn 
Continho's case tells the way to work it out. In their respective quotas direct 
recruits as well as promotees rotate the quota system as 1 : 1 as mentioned 
in Me1vyn Continho's case. But after the Rules of 1961, when the quota 
system has been discarded Meivyn continho's rule cannot apply. As per 
Rule 4-C of the 1961 rules, the allocation of at least 50% posts in favour 
B 
of direct recruits, allocated to Customs Houses on the basis of their 
selection, would obviously present no difficulty. Equally enlistment of 
promotee Appraisers, since coming from feeder sources of Customs 
C 
Houses, from the date of their promotion, would present no difficulty. Both 
would be entitled to placement in the joint seniority list on the basis of 
their continuous officiation. [552-B-F] 
Mervyn Continlw and Ors. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and Ors., 
[1963] SCR 600 and Direct Rccmit Class II Engineering Officen·' Association 
v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 715, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 257 of 
1988 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.5.87 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Delhi in 0.A. No. 1089 of 1986. 
Rajinder Sachar, M.K. Ramamurthi, Kapil Sibal, Ms. Shyamla 
Pappu, S:P. Goyal, K.K. Mohan, M.A. Krishnamoorthi, M.A. Chinnas-
wamy, Ms. C. Ramarnurthi, H. Subrarnaniarn, Ashok K. Srivastava, R.R. 
Bharti, C.V.S. Rao, P. Parmeswaran, KT. Ananthararnan, L.R. Singh, R.F. 
Nariman, C.S.S. Rao, R. Vasudevan, Ms. Rachna Gupta, (Sudershan 
Wadia), In-per.sons, A.S. Sun<ler Rajan, - in-person, Rajinder Kumar-in 
person, N.K. Muthu Krishnan-in-person and R.R. Bharti for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by : 
D 
E 
F 
G 
PUNCHHI, J. This is another manifestation of the never-ending 
dispute between direct recruits and prornotees, arising in this Batch of 5 
appeals, directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1987 of the H 
542 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
A representative petition, representing the interests of the promotee 
officers, belonging to the Customs
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.