LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus KISHORILAL BABLANI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
v.
KISHORILAL BABLANI
DECEMBER 3, 1998
B
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Service Law :
Indian Administrative Service-Class I and Class II service- C
Appointment to-Respondent qualified in l.A.S.-On the basis of available
vacancies appointed in class II service in Customs Depar71111rnt-Subsequently
representation mad{! by appellant for appointment to Class I service-Ground
of error in computation of vacancies-Non-compliance with rule providing
50% for direct recruits and 50% for promotees-Rejection of representation--
Application before Tribunal-Direction by Tribunal to consider the D
appointment of the respondent after adjusting the vacancies in strict
compliance of 50:50 quota-Appeal by Union of India-Held delay defeats
equity-Delay of I 5 and 20 years cannot be overlooked when an applicant
before the Court seeks equity-The applicants for all these years had no
legal right to any particular post-After more than JO years, the process of E
selection and notification of vacancies cannot be and ought not to be
reopened in the interest of the proper functioning and morale of the concerned
service-It would jeopardise the existing positions of a very large number of
members of that service-However, it would not be fair now to take away the
benefit which the respondent has actually obtained under the orders of the
Tribunal-But after this lapse of time, such relief cannot be granted to F
anybody else.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1328 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.9.94 of the Central Administrative G
Tribunal at Bombay in I.A.No. 11 of 1992.
Anoop G. Choudhary, Hemant Sharma for V.K. Verma for the Appellants.
G.D. Gupta and S.R. Setia for the Respondent.
311
H
312
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
Pankaj Kalra and Vijay Kumar for intervenor.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The respondent appeared in the I.A.S. and Allied Services examination
in the year 1974. He passed that examination and was placed at S.No.221 in
B Category Ill. Candidates upto S.No.198 were accommodated in Class I service
on the basis of the available vacancies. Since the respondent was at S.No.
221·, he was accommodated in Class II service in the Customs Department.
With effect from 10.11.1976, he was working as Customs Appraiser
(Class II) in the Bombay Customs House. In 1983, the respondent made a
C representation to the effect that in 1974, when the Department of Customs and
Excise had notified available vacancies to be filled in by the candidates who
qualified at the I.A.S. and Allied Services examination, the number of vacancies
was wrongly intimated. Initially, this Department had intimated 3 5 vacancies
to be so filled in for Class I posts. This figure was finally revised to 40
vacancies. According to the respondent, 97 vacancies should have been so
D notified in Class I posts in 1974 and not 40. Had the vacancies been com~ctly
notified, he would have been appointed to Class I post in this Department
in 1974. The representation which was made in 1993 was rejected on23.9.1985.
Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition before the Bombay High
Court, being Writ Petition No. 1933 of 1985 which was transferred to the
E Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its
Judgment and order dt. 6.9 .94, has allowed the application of the respondent.
The present appeal is filed from the said judgment and order of the Tribunal.
The appellants have conceded that as per the Recruitment Rules
pertaining to this Department, there is a quota of 50% for direct recruits and
F 50% for promotees. The vacancies which have to be considered for applying
the quota ?f 50% for direct recruits, are not just permanent vacancies but also
temporary vacancies of long term duration. However, by mistake, upto the
year 1990, only permanent vacancies which were available to direct recruits
on the basis of 50% quota were notified. The position has been rectified from
G the year 1990. The appellants also accept that had temporary vacancies of
long duration been taken into account in 1974, 97 vacancies should have been
notified. The Tribunal has, in this connection, rightly referred to a memorandum
issued by the Central Board of Revenue dated 20.4.1953 in which the procedure
for confirmation, promotion, reversion, retrenchment etc, in grades which are
filled partly by direct recruiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.