LexRABINDRA NATH BOSE & ORS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 697 RABINDRA NATH BOSE & ORS •. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. October 'I, 1969 [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C:.J., S. M. S!KRI, G. K. MITTER, A, N. RAY AND P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and !&-Whether applicable to acts done in pre-Constitution period-Prom_otion of Income-tax Officers on the basis of Seniority Rules made in 1952 challenged in writ petition in 1967 -Petition is barred by laches-Confirmed Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax must not be disturbed by delayed appeal to fundamental rights. In 1943 the Government of India feit it necessary to re-organise the entire service of Income-tax Officers and to create a Central 'Service and uniform pay scales for different constituent grades. The main idea was to create Class I Cadre Officers Service and to make selection to it from the existing Class II officers. This reorganisation scheme was fOrmulated in a letter dated 29-9-1944 from the Government of India to all Com- missioners of Inc.Jme-tax. According to the scheme the cadre of Income· tax Officers Class I was to consist of Grades I and II and Class II officers were to be in Grade Ill. Recruitment to Class I was to be in the first instance in Grade II. Recruitment to Grade II was to be from two sources : (a) to the extent of 80% di_rectly through competitive examina- tion (b) to the extent of 20% by promotion fr.om Class II. On 26-5-1945 Government framed statutory rules governing recruitment to the service. The petitioners were recruited ,.as Income Tax Officers Class I Grade II by competitive examination and the respondents were recruited to it by promotion in tl1e pre-Constitution period 1945 to 1950. A Departmental Promotion Committee met in 1948. Certain Seniority Rules were framed in September 1949. The Departmental Promotion Committee afotesaid- prepared a Seniority List of Income-tax Officers aS on 1-1-50 and circu- lated it on 24-1-1950 along with the Seniority Rules which had by then been modified. Objections to the List-in respect of data only-were in- vited by 28-2-1950. Ir. 195! by new statutory rules the 'quota' of direct recruits was ·fixed at 66 2/3% and that of ptomotees at 33 1/3%. In 1952 a commi•:ee met to finalise the Seniority List. It also modified the Senidrity Rules in that year. A revised Seniority List was issued in 1953. As a result of the seniorities thus allotted and by operation of the Seni- ority Rules the respondents became senior to the petitioners in the rank of confirmed Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax. The petitioners made various representations to the Government but without success. In 1962 one Jaisinghani filed a petition in the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging promotiOllS made in the post-Constitution period in violation of the statutory rules. The High Court dismissed the petition. In appeal this Court held the promotions in violation of the 'quota rule' to be inva1id but expressly exempted those prornotees who had been confirmed as Assistart Commissioners of Income-tax from the operation of the Court's order. Shortly after the decision of this Court in Jaisinghani's case in 1967 the present peti_tions were filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petitioners did not attack the validity of the 'respon.Pents' appointments but urged that for the purpose of seniority their appointments should be post.dated in conformity with the 'quota rule' laid down ·in para 2(d) of the Government lettelr dated 29·9-1944. 698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 2 S.C.R. They relied on Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Attorney- General however raised certain preliminary objections to the_ petition and contended inter alia that;. (i) all acts which had been challenged in the petition happened "before the advent of the Constitution, anJ could not be challenged under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, (ii) the petition must be dismissed on the ground of !aches; (iii) the relief claimed would be against the decision in J aisinghani' s case. HELD : The petition must be dismissed. (i) !~ is settled laW that the Constitution has nO retrospective opera· tion. The petitioners therefore could not complain of breach of Arts. 14 and 16 .>f the Constitution in respect of acts done before the Constitution came into force. These acts in the present case were ( 1) appointments of respondents to Income-tax Officers Class I Grade II service; (2) S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.