RAM SARAN AND ANR. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 22-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM SARAN AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1991 
A 
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMY AND 
B 
M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
'"""-- --~ · Service and Labour Law: Punjab Excise and Taxation Department 
(State Service Class III-A) Rules, 1956/Punjab Excise and Taxation 
Department (State Service Class II) Rules-Rule 57 Punjab Excise Sub-
. )...-' 
ordinate Service Rules, 1943-Rule 7(a)(ii). 
C 
-
-
Rule 5-Punjab Excise and Taxation Department (State Service 
Class-II) Rules-Promotion of ministerial staff cadre as Excise and 
~--...(' Taxation Officers-Abolition of cadre of Assistant Excise and Taxation 
Officers eligibility requirement for Excise/Taxation Inspectors 5 years 
minimum experience as such-Employees on deputation/transfer or 
holding post in. different cadre not entitled to claim service in that cadre 
to be treated experience in the ministerial cadre. 
In the Punjab Excise and Taxation Department there were two 
separate cadres known as "Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers" 
k governed under the State Service Class III-A Rules, 1956 and "Excise 
D 
E 
& Taxation Officers" governed by the State Service Class II Rules. 
Under the class II Rules, appointments were made in the ratio of (a) 
50% by direct recruitment and (b) 50% by promotion from amongst 
Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers. Likewise under the Class ID-A 
Rules 50% of the vacancies were filled by direct recruitment and 50% by 
promotion from the subordinate 
~taff comprising the Taxation 
F 
,i_ Inspectors, Excise Inspectors, Ministrial Staff Head Office and Ministe-
/ 
- rial Staff Sub-office who within themselves bad shares as laid down. 
The Writ Petitioners and the contesting respondent11-Ram Saran 
and O.P. Singhla had initially joined the Punjab Excise and Taxation 
Department as clerks and were confmned as such. The Petitioners were 
G 
promoted and appointed as Excise /faxation Inspectors by transfer 
under Rule 7(a)(ii) of the Punjab Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 
1943 and their lien in the taxation department suspended under Rule 
3.14(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. Whereas Ram Saran and 
, 
O.P.·Singhla continued in the ministerial cadre and were Assistant and 
Superintendant respectively at the relevant time. 
H 
729 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
Following reorganisation of the department, the cadre of --y-
A 
Assistant Excise & Taxation Officers was abolished and all the Assistant 
Excise & Taxation Officers were redesignated as Excise and Taxation 
Officers. Consequently Class III-A Rules became redundant. As under 
Class II Rules there was no provision for promotion of subordinate staff 
direct as Excise & Taxation Officers the Government in order to pro-
B 
vide avenues of promotion to the ministerial cadre including Taxation 
·• 
Inspectors and Excise Inspectors brought in ·suitable amendments to 
_ ~---­
these Rules on the following terms. 
"Rule 5. The members of the service shall be recruited in the 
following manner namely: 
......._ . 
c 
(a) 
xxx 
xxx 
(b ). In the case of an Excise and Taxation Officer; 
(i) by promotion from amongst the Taxation Inspectors and 
D 
Excise Inspectors who have an experience of working as such for· a 
minimum period of five years; or 
(ii) by promotion from amongst the Superintendents, Assistant, 
Accountants and Senior Scale Stenographers working in the Excise and 
Taxation Commissioners Head Office and in the Divisional and District 
E 
Offices of the Department of Excise and Taxation, Punjab." 
Applying the draft amended Rules before they were formally 
promulgated the contesting respondents Ram Saran and O.P. Singbla 
were promoted as Excise & Taxation Officers on 22.8.1983. The Writ 
Petitioners who had been transfreed earlier to other cadres of Excise/ 
F 
Taxation Inspectors and worked there for 14/15 years beyond the pro-
bation period were not considered. They therefore, filed writ petitions 
in the High Court challenging the promotion of the appellants mainly 
on the ground that on the basis of their seniority and lien in the ministe-
rial cadre, they had a right to be considered for promotion prior to the 
appellants. 
G 
The appellants and the State contended that if the Petitioners 
,; 
wanted to be considered for this post on the basis of their lien in the 
\ 
ministerial cadre, they may seek reversion to this cadre and thereafter 
their case would be considered on merits in accordance with the eligibi-
lity as prescribed under th

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