LexMERVIN COUTINDO & ORS. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~00 MERVYN COUTillo'DO & ORS. '· COllECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY It. ORS. February 14, 1966. [P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, s. M.Sll.Rl and v. RAMASWAMI, JJ.j Constitut/Qn a/ India, Afls. 16(1), )~'Rotational rystem' applied in fl/ling vacancia in the cadres o/ Appraisers and Principal Apprtliler• Ifs Customs Department-Fixation of Seniority-validily. Tue petition= who were Appraisers in the Custom. Department ftled B a wnt petition under An. 32, cballengmg the validity of the 'rotational system as applied in fixing the seniority of Appraisers and Principal ap- C praisers. Tue system, as laid down in the relC\·ant departmental circulars was that vacancies occurring in the cadre of Appraisers were w go alter- natively to "promotecs' and 'direct recruits'. According to the petitioners this resulted in inequality, especially in view of the fact that the number of direct recruits over the years was very low. Promotion to the grade of Principal Appraisers was from the cadre of Appraisers; only thooc who had scrvocl as Appraisers for five years were entitled to he promoted .to the higher grade. Since the direct recruits bad to wait for five yeara D Wore they could bec-Ome Principal Appraiser the promotecs below thcm who had put in five years as Appriasers became Principal Appraisers. In order to ...,.,tore the seniority of the direct rei:nW thus loot, the rotallooal system wu applied to the cadre of Principal Appraisers also l.1. ooo vacancy was to go to a promotee and the other to a direct recruit. The pl~ of inequality in violation of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution was raised by the petitioners in respect of this al!10. B HELD : (i) There is no inhe~nt vice in the principle of fixing seniority by rotation in a case wheo a service is composed in fixed proportion of direct recruits and promotees. Any anomalies that may have resulted .. ac.oount of insufficient recruitment of direct recruits in the pa~ could DOC be a ground for striking down the system itself. [605 B.C, G] T. Devada:ran v. Union of Ind/a and Ors. (1964} 4 S.C.R. 680 • diluinguisbed. (ii) The same however, cannot be said when the rotational system i& applied to the recruitment of Principal Appraisers. The source of recruit- ment for these is one only, namely, the grade of Appraisers. There ia no question of any quota being reserved from two sources in their case. In so far therefore as the Government was doing what it called restor-.. lion of oeoiority of direct recruits in Appraisers grade on their promoliOll to the higher grade it was clearly denying equality of opportunity. [605 C-G] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Pclilion No. 97 of 1964. Petition under Art. 32 of the Conslitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental righls. Ved Vyasa, J. R. Gagrat, B. R. Agarwala and N. K. Puri, for the petitioners. C. K. D~htary, Attorney-General, R. Ganapathy lytr and .It N. Sachthey, for respondent no. I. G B • , • ,. ., :1~ -, ~ MERVYN v. COLLECTOR (Wanchoo, /.) 601 A B. R. L. Iyengar and S. K. Mehta, for respondents Nos. 6 to· ""'" 23. I. M. Lal, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondents Nos. , 25 and 27 to 34. Respondent No. 24 appeared in person. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ' . Wanchoo, J, This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution by i certain Appraisers in the Customs Department of the Government oflndia is directed against the seniority list prepared in 1963 under the order of the Central Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to c as the Board). The petitioners contend that the list in question denies them equality of opportunity in matters relating to employ- ment under the State enshrined in Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. The system that prevails for recruitment to the post of Appraisers is that 50 per cent is reserved for direct recruits while the remaining 50• per cent is filled up by promotion from subordinates in the Customs " D Department. It further appears that seniority is determined in the cadre by the system of rotation, i.e.; the list is arranged in such a way that there is one person from the direct recruits and one from the promotees alternately. The contention of the petitioners is that this sytem bas resulted in discriminatory treatment against them with the consequence that promotees of much longer service in the ' cadre of Appraisers are put in the seniority list below direct recruits E with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.