S.G. JAISINGHANI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1967] 2 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 22-02-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO, J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI, V. RAMASWAMI, C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 34 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
[K. 
S. G. JAISINGHANI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(With Connected Writ Petition) 
February 22, 1967 
SuBBA RAo, c. J., J. c. SHAH, s. M. SIKRI, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.J 
lncomt-tax Service-Seniority Rules, 1952, r. 1(/) (iii) and (iv)-
3eniority between direct recruits and promotees-lf violative of Arts. 14 
and 16 of Constitution-Promotion Rules, r. 4--Promotion from Class I, 
Grade If to Grade I-Different periods of service for direct recruits and 
promotee:r-If discriminatory-Income-tax 
Officers 
(Class I, Grade II) 
Service Recruitment Rules, r. 4--Fbcation of quota-Duty to follow, if 
11iandatory. 
In 1944, the Government of India created ·two classes of Income-tax 
Servie<:, namely, Class I service with Grades I and II, and Class II service 
with Grade III. Recrwtment to Class I, Grade II was to be made : (a) 
by direc- recruitment through a competitive examination, and (b) by pro-
motion from Class II, Grade Ill. A Class II officer is considered by the 
Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Class I, Grade Il, 
after 5 years' service in Class II ( 2 years of probation and 3 years as 
Income-tax Officer). 
In 1951, ti: ... ratio between direct recruits and prO-
motees was fixed at 2 : I, presumably under r. 4 of the Income-tax Officers 
(Class I Grade II) Service Recruitment Rules. 
Under r. 1 (f)(iii) of the 
Seniority Rules, 1952, dealing with seniority between direct recruits and 
promotees, a promotee becomes senior to a ditect recruit who has com-
pleted the probationary period of two years in the very year in which the 
Department Promotion Committee recommends 
the officers in Class II 
for promotion to Class I. Rule 1 (f) (iv) deals with a special situation in 
,vhich an officer initially appointed to Class 11 service is given seniority in 
the same manner as a departmental promotee, if subsequent to his passing 
the departme.ital examination he is appointed in Class I on the results of 
the competitive examination. 
Rule 4 of the Rules of Promotion of the Central Board of Revenue 
Office Procedure Manual, states; that the prescribed minimum service for 
an officer of Class I, Grade II for promotion to Grade I is 5 years gazetted 
service including 1 year in Cla~ I, Grade II. 
For a promotee from Class 
II, the minimum period of service for promotion to Class I, 
Grade I, 
would be actually 4 years service in Class II and 1 year service in Class I, 
Grade II. 
Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were appointed in Class II, Grade Ill Service 
in 1947. They and the appellant (who was a direct recruit) were appoint-
ed in Class I, Grade II service in 1951 after having successfully completed 
in the 1950 competitive examinf..tion 
The three respo!ldents were how-
ever ~hown as seniors to the appellant as "deemed promotees" under r. 1 
H 
(f)(iv). 
The appellant filed a writ petition 
in the High Court and contended 
that (I) r. l(f)(iii) and (iv) of the Seniority Rules and r. 4 of the Pro-
motion Rules were discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the 
704 
SUPREME COURT llEPORTS 
[1967) 2 S.C.R. 
Constitution. and (2) that during 1951-56 there was excessive recruit-
A 
meat of pron1otces. in violation of the quota 
rule prescribing the ratio 
Of 2 ; I. 
TI1c High Court rejected the petition. 
In appeal to this Ccurt, 
HELD: (l)(a). Ruic l(f)(iii) ol' the Seniority Rules, 1957, does 
not violate the guarantee unde·r Arts. 14 and 16. 
It is pot corrected to say that all officers appointed to Class I, Grade II 
scivice formed one class and that after the officers have been once re-
cruited there could be no distinction between direct recruits and promo-. 
tees. 
It is really a case of recruitment to the service from two different 
sources and the adjustment of seniority between 
them. 
The concept of 
equality in the matter of promotion can be predicated only when the pro-
motces arc dra\VIl from' the same source. 
If the preferential treatment of 
one source in Telation to the other is based on the 
differences between 
the t\\'O sources, and the said differences have a reasonable relation to the 
nature of the office it can legitimately be sustained on the basis of a valid 
classification. 
The reason for the classification in the present case was 
that the higher echelons of the service 
should be filled by experienced 
officers possessing not only a high degree of ability but also first-rate expe-
rience. 
A rule which gives seniority to outstanding offic

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