UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus MAJJI JANGAMAYYA ETC.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 05-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
28 
UNION OF INDIA ETC. 
v. 
MAJJI JANGAMAYYA ETC. 
(With connected Civil Appeals) 
November 5, 1976 
[A. N. RAY. C. J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SSNGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 53, 313 and 366-Scope of 
Government of India Act, 1935, 241-Scope of-Office Manual, 1955, Vol. 
fl. r. 18-Whether statutory rule. 
· 
The Government of India, in 1950, framed a rule for promotion of an 
C 
Income Tax Officer as Assistant Commissioner and it was published as rule 18 
in Vol. 11 of the Office Manual published in 1955. 
The rule provided 
that 
promotion shall be strictly on merit and that no one should ordinarily 
be 
considered for promotion unless he has completed at least ten years service as 
Income Tax Officer. 
In 1957, a memorandum was issued by the Central Board 
of Revenue containing the following principles for promtion of Income Tax 
Officers Class I as Assistant Commissioners. 
0 
E 
F 
' 
G 
H 
1. Greater emphasis should be laid on merit as a criterion. 
2. The Departmental Promotion Committee should first decide the field of 
choice, namely, the number of eligible officers awiating promotion who should 
be considered for inclusion in the selction list. An officer of outstanding merit 
may be included in the list even If he is outside the normal field of choice. 
3. The field of choice wherever possible should extend to 5 to 6 timei the 
number of vacancies expected. 
4. From among such officers those who are considered unfit for prometion 
should be excluded and the remaining should be classified as 'outstandin~· 'yery 
good' and 'good' on the basis of merit as determined by their respective records 
of service. The selection list should then be prepared by placing the aame8 
in the order of these three categories without disturbing the seniority inter se 
within each category. 
5. Promotions should strictly be made from such selection list in the order 
in which the names are finally arranged. The selection list should be periodic-
ally reviewed removing from the list names of persons who have been pr•mot-
ed, and including fresh names. 
On 16th August 1972 this Court set aside the seniority list in the first 
Bishan Sarup Gupta case [1975] Supp. SCR 491 and gave directions for pre-
paring a fresh list. 
On 21 December 1972, the Government applied to this 
Court for making ad hoc promotions and the court permitted them to do so. 
Accordingly, in March 1973 and November 1973 the Board promoted 5' and 
48 Income Tax Officers respectively as 
Assistant 
Commissioners. 
It was 
distinctly stated in those two orders that the ad hoc appointments made ago.inst 
those posts were provisional and that the appointments eventually be made 
on the basis of the revised seniority list of Income Tax Officers Class I 
as 
finally approved by this Court, and on selection by a duly constituted Depart-
mental Promotion Committee in accordance with the prescribed procedure. 
In February 1973, the Income Tax Officers (Class I) Service (Regulation of 
Seniority) Rules, 1973, were made and a revised seniority list of Income Tax 
Officers Class I was made on the basis of those rules. The list as well as the 
Rules were approved in the second Bishan Samp Gupta Case [1975] 1 SCR 
104. From such seniority list the Departmental Promotion Committee made a 
selection list in July 1974, for promtion of Income Tax Officers, Class I, as 
A8Sistant Commissioners. There were 112 vacancies and the Govrenment sent 
336 names in the running order of seniority for consideration of the field of 
( 
. 
-
\ 
UNION OF INDIA V. MAJJI JANGAMAYYA (Ray, C.J.) 
29 
choice. The Committee followed the instructions in the 1957 Memorandum and 
found 276 to be fit for the field of choice, assessed the merits of 145 persons in 
order of seniority, found one officer outstanding, 114 very good, and 7 Sche-
duled Castes (Tribes officers good, according to the instructions. 
The Selection 
list was challenged in various High Courts. Two of the High Courts held in 
favour of the petitioners and the other High Courts gave interim orders staying 
the operation of the Selection List. 
In appeals by the Union of India to this Court, the respondents sought to 
support the judgments in. their favour on the following contentions :-
{ 1) The requirement in the rule regarding 10 years experience was not 
abrogated as contended by the Government and the affidavits field in the various 
proceedings on behalf of the Union as well as the petitioners show that the 10

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