196 of 1970 filed by B. S. Gupta was dismissed whereas Writ Petition No.
1, Kamal Kanti Dutta, was appointed as an Inspector of Income tax on December, 7, 1950 and after passing the departmental examination he was promoted an Income tax officer, Class II on June 21, 1954.
S of 1966 filed by Mohan Chandra Joshi under Article 32 of the Constitution, a similar mandamus was issued by the Court.
Respondents 280 to 357 were appointed on probation as I.T.os.,
Respondents 1 to 3 to that petition are the Union of India, the Chairman of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Union Public Service Commission respectively.
Class I, after Petitioner No.
550 of 1970 filed by M. C. Joshi was substantially allowed.
Class II Trainee on July 1, 1947.
66 of 1974 and respondent No.
In fact, Shri B. Gupta figures in two cause titles known as the first Gupta case and the Second Gupta case.
2 was promoted to that cadre in May 1971.
S in Writ Petition No.
Thus the direct recruits succeeded substantially in their companytentions.
The decision of the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions was challenged in this Court in four appeals one by B. S. Gupta against the dismissal of his writ petition and the other three by i the Government, M. C. Joshi and iii S promotees.
In 1962, S. G. Jaisinghani who is respondent No.
Two writ petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court to challenge the fresh seniority list one by B. S. Gupta, a promotee of 1962 and the other by M. C. Joshi, a direct recruit who had succeeded in the earlier round of litigation in this Court.
Writ Petition No.
4146 of 1978 filed Civil Writ No.
Respondents 4 to 8 are B. D. Roy, S. G. Jaisinghani, M. C. Joshi, B. S. Gupta and M. Jangamayya respectively.
358 in Writ Petition No.
Those proceedings were dismissed by this Court on November 6, 1968.
Respondents 4, 7 and 8 are Assistant Commissioners of Income tax while respondents 5 and 6 are workings Deputy Directors of Investigation.
These writ petitions were heard by two separate Benches of the Delhi High Court.
Respondents 1 to 5 to the petition are the Union of India, Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Union Public Service Commission respectively.
On January 1, 1966 he was promoted as Income tax officer, Class I, which post he was holding on the date of the petition, February 8, 1974.
The aforesaid decision was given by this Court on February 2, 1967.
Promotees who were likely to be affected by the decision of the Writ Petition were added as respondents 4 to 126 to that Petition.
4146 of 1978 the Petitioner, Hundraj Kanyalal Sajnani, was appointed directly on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission as T.o.,
In all these appeals, the only question or companysideration was whether the seniority list prepared on July 15, 1968 was companyrect and in accordance with the mandamus issued by this Court in Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors.
Respondent No.
358, S. G. Jaisinghani, who was recruited directly as I.T.O., Class I, in 1951 was holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income tax on the date of the petition.
These appeals were heard together and were disposed of by a judgment dated August 16, 1972 which is reported in Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India and Ors.
Respondents 6 to 357 who were recruited directly as I.T.Os.,
Respondent 359, Mohan Chandra Joshi, who was recruited directly as I.T.O., Class L in 1953 was also holding a similar rank and was working as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
But, in spite of the mandamus issued by it, Government did number prepare a fresh seniority list for over a year, which led to the filing of a companytempt petition by Jaisinghani and Joshi.
Mohan Chandra Joshi, like Jaisinghani, was recruited directly as Income tax officer, Class I, Grade II, with the only difference that he was appointed in 1953 while Jaisinghani was appointed in 1951.
189 D of 1962 in the High Court of Punjab under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the seniority rules in regard to Income tax Service, Class I, Grade II as also the actual implementation of the quota rule, as infringing Articles 14 and 16 1 of the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Nos.
In Writ Petition No.
the quota rule acquired statutory force, appointments of promotees in excess of the quota became bad and it became obligatory for the Government to prepare a fresh seniority list.
The first principle was accepted as good.
Any surplus vacancies which cannot be filled by promotion for want of suitable candidates will be added to the quota of vacancies to be tilled by direct recruitment.
C In Bishan Sarup Gupta the Court was called upon to examine the companyrectness of seven principles enumerated in the Government letter dated July 15, 1968 governing seniority.
He was posted at the relevant time as the Deputy Director of Investigation, New Delhi.
66/1974 4146/1978.
Jaisinghani who was recruited directly as an Income tax officer, Class I Grade II , raised four principal companytentions Rule l f iii of the seniority rules as framed in 1952 was based upon an unjustifiable classification between direct recruits and promotees after they had entered Class I, Grade II Service.
R. N. Sachthey, E. C. Agarwala and Miss A. Subhashini for RR 1 3 in WP 66 and RR 1 2 in WP 4146.
By rule 4, the Government was to determine, subject to the provisions of rule 3, the method or methods to be employed for the purpose of filling any particular vacancies, or such vacancies as may require to be filled during any particular period, and the number of candidates to be recruited by each method.
4146/78.
The former was promoted as I.T.O., Class II in December, 1957 and as T.o.,
He was promoted as an Assistant Commissioner of Income tax with effect from December 17, 1969.
Class I, in May, 1971 while the latter was promoted as I.T.o.,
Petitioners 2 and 3, Bikash Mohan Das Gupta and Sushil Ranjan Das, were promoted as Inspectors of Income tax in April, 1955.
N. Kackar, Sol.
In the meanwhile on July 15, 1968, the Government prepared a fresh seniority list and filed it in this Court.
In 1959 60 he was promoted as I.T.O., Class I, and was companyfirmed in that cadre with effect from December 9, 1960.
Ram Panjwani, Raj Panjwani, S. K. Bagga and Mrs. 5.
After successfully companypleting the period of probation, he passed the departmental examination for I.T.Os.
in July 1950.
Bagga for R. 4 in WP 4146 and Intervener Gujjar Mal.
was delivered by Chandrachud, C.J. D. A. Desai, J. gave a dissenting opinion.
1 was promoted to that cadre on January, 1, 1966.
Class I, were appointed on probation as Class I officers after Petitioner No.
Class II, in August, 1973.
K Sanghi for the Interveners Hari Narain and L. S. Chakravarty .
The Judgment of Y. V. Chandrachud, C.J., N. L. Untwalia, P. S. Kailasam and E. S. Venkataramiah, JJ.
The Court suggested that for future years the roster system should be adopted by framing an appropriate rule for working out the quota between the direct recruits and the promotees and that a roster should be maintained indicating the order in which appointments are made by direct recruitment and by promotion in accordance with the percentages fixed under the statutory rule for each method of recruitment.
In Writ Petition No.
