MALOON LAWRENCE CECIL D'SOUZA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 01-05-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
) 
... 
409 
MALOON LAWRENCE CECIL D' SOUZA 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
May lst, 1975 
B 
[A. N. RAY, C. J., H. R. KHANNA, M. H. BEG, ANDY. V. 
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.] 
Constitution 
of 
India, 1950, 
Article 
16-Seniority List, validity of-
Promotion of petitioner as Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax prior to 
respond~rus 4 to 26-Petitioner, if could claim seniority over respondents in 
C 
.subsequent ser.iority list. 
On July 1, 1947 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Offi~r Class IT. 
On August 12, 1949 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Officer Class 
I 
Grade II in post-1945 vacancy reserved for candidates with war service. 
On 
January 24, 1950 a seniority list of Income-Tax Officers Class I Grade JI as 
on January 1, 1950 was issued on the basis of 1947 Seniority Rules. The 
petitioner was shown in that list senior to respondents 4 to 26. The same 
position was reflected in a seniority list issued in 1958. The petitioner was 
prompted as Income Tax Officer Class I Gtade I with effect from January 1, 
1951 and confirmed in that post from the said date. The Rules of 1974 were 
revised and in supersession of them 1952 Seniority Rules were issued by the 
Ministry of Home Affairs. 
The Income-Tax department took -some time to 
revise the seniority list of Income-tax Officers Class I in accordance with 
1952 Seniority Rules and finally on November 26, 1956 
revised 
seniority 
list of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade I as on October, 1 1956, was issued. 
In this list respondents 4 to 26 were shown senior to the petitioner and were 
entitled to be promoted to higher posts earlier than the petitioner. Another 
"Seniority list of Assistant Commissioners was issued as on January l, 1958 in 
conformity with the earlier list of 1956 showing the petitioner to be junior 
to respondents 4 to 26. 
By this time the petitioner and respondents 4 to 26 
had all been promoted Assistant Com.missioners. 
This Court in Karnik's case 78 I.T.R. 243 held that the following princi-
\ples emerge from 1952 Rules for determining the_ seniority. (i) Between Jncome-
tax officers promoted at the same meeting, their seniority inter se will be 
reflected in the list of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax; (ii) Between 
an officer promoted earlier and another officer senior to him but who was 
not considered in the meeting when the former was promoted, seniority in the 
list of Income-tax Officers will be reflected in the higher cadre; (iii) Where 
the senior officer was considered and not promoted, and the junior officer 
\Vas promoted at that meeting. the order of promotion will govern seniority 
in the higher grade and (iv) Where senior officer is promoted and confirmed 
and at a later meeting a junior officer is promoted, the latter cannot claim 
to be placed above the senio1 officer in the higher cad.re relying upon the 
circumstance that he could not be considered for promotion at the earlier 
meeting, because he had not to his credit the qualifying minimum service. 
In pursuance of the above judgment of this Court, seniority of. Income-tax 
Assistant Commissioners promoted before Avril 1. 1964 was recast and new 
seniority list was issued on February 1, 1971. The petitioner filed this writ 
petition challenging the seniority list of Additional Commissioners ·of Income-
tax as on February 1, 1971 circulated by the Government of India, Ministry 
of Finance. 
' 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as he was promoted 
Assistant Commissioner on August 19, 1955 while respondents 4 to 26 were 
promoted to that post subsequent to that date, the petitioner should be shown · 
senior to those respondents. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1
r 
410 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] SUPP· S.C.R. 
Rejecting the contention and dismissing the \Vrit petition. 
HELD : (i) The fact that the petitioner was 
promoted 
a'i 
Assistant 
Con1missioner prior to respondents 4 to 26 \Vould not make him senior to 
respondents 4 to 26 because according to the seniority list issued on the basis 
of 1952 Seniority Rules the above mentioned respondents were senior to the 
petitioner. The seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 26 has. 
to be delermined in the light of proposition No. 2 laid do\\n by this Court 
in Karniks case, according to which bet ween an officer promoted earlier and 
another officer senior to him. but who \Vas not considered in the meeting 
\\·hen the former \Vas promoted, seniority in the list of Income-tax O

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