HUNDRAJ KANYALAL SAJNANI ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 994 · Decided: 16-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HUNDRAJ KANYALAL SAJNANI ETC. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 1990 
B 
(SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE CJ., B.C. RAY, L.M. 
c 
SHARMA, P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY JJ.] 
Indian Income-Tax, 1961/l.T.O. Group A and Group-B-
Recruitment Rules I988 and Seniority Rules, 1973. Sections 116, 117, 
118 and 120-Group A and Group B Officers of lncome Tax 
Department-Classification-Whether constitutional-Seniority List of 
1973-Whether valid. 
The main petition has been filed by the Income-tax Officers 
Gronp-A, challenging the Seniority Rules of 1973, which were framed 
by the Department pursuant to the directions given by this Court in an 
D 
earlier case B.S. Gupta v. Union of India, (1975] Supp. SCR 491. The 
circumstances that led to the filing of the instant petitions may be stated 
thus: 
The Government by virtue of the Rules propounded in its letter 
dated 29th September 1944, re-organised the Income-tax services into 
E 
Class I and Class II. The said Rules inter alia laid down that recruit-
ment to the cadre of Income-tax Officers Gronp-A shall be from two 
sources i.e. direct recruitment and promotion,. the qnota for the two 
being 80% and 20% respectively. In 1945, the Government framed fresh 
recruitment rules wherein it was provided that the recruitment from 
the said sources will be made as per the directions of the Government, 
F 
in effect, keeping the recruitment quotas in abeyance. In September, 
1949, the Government framed Seniority Rules and it was laid down that 
the promotees who had been certified by the Federal Public Commis-
sion, in any calendar year, shall be senior to all direct recruits who 
completed their probation during that year or after and are confirmed 
with effect from the date in that year or after. In the year 1950, the 
G 
Seniority Rules were again revised and the concerned Rule l(f)(ili) was 
amended .. By its letter dated 18.10.1951, the Government revised the 
quotas of direct recruits and promotees, in that, in the case of direct 
rC.:ruits the quota was reduced from 80% to 66-2/3% while in the case of 
promotees, the quota was enhanced from 20% to 33-1/3% and also 
amended the Rule J(f)(iii) of 1950 Rules. This revision, in effect, gave 3 
H 
years' weightage in seniority to the promotees. These rules continued to 
994 
., 
-. 
H.K. SAJNANI v. U .0.1. 
995 
operate till 1959. Between 1959 and 1960, 114. posts were npgraded to 
A 
,,_ 
those of Income Tax Officers Group 'A' and the promotees were 
appointed to the said posts during that period. 
One Jaisinghani, a direct recruit challenged the constitutional 
validity of Rule l(l)(iii) and (iv) of 1952, Seniority Rules by means of a 
writ petition in the High Court, which gave 3 years' weightage to the 
B 
promotees in the matter of ilxation of their seniority and the implemen-
tation of quota. The High Court rejected the writ petition. In appeal, 
this Court held that the quota having been fixed by the Government in 
exercise of the powers conferred on it under Rule 4 of the 1945 Rules, 
the same was valid. The Court also upheld the weightage given to the 
promotees under the 1952 Rules. The Court further directed that roster c 
system should be adopted by framing an appropriate rule for working 
out the quota system between the direct recruits and promotees. It may 
).-
be mentioned that the court gave this direction because it was of opinion 
that the promotees were in excess of the prescribed quota for each of the 
years 1951 to 1956, and that they had been illegally appointed. It was 
therefore directed that the seniority of Jaisinghani and others similarly 
D 
placed be re-adjusted and the Government should prepare a fresh 
seniority list in accordance with law. 
"' 
Pursuant to the direction given by the Court, the government 
prepared seniority list which was challenged in the Delhi High Court by two 
separate writ petitions one by B.S. Gupta, a promotee of 1962 and 
E 
another by M.C. Joshi, a direct recruit. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition of Gupta bot substantially allowed the one ftled by Joshi. In 
appeal this court by its order dated 16.8.1972 in Gupta's case AIR 1972 
SC 262; held that seniority list was valid with regard to the promotions 
made upto January IS, 1959 hut the same was not valid for the period 
;. 
thereafter. The court accordingly set aside the list to the extent it 
F 
concerned the period from 16.1.1959 and directed the Department to 
prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.