Class 1, Grade 1, and companyfirmed also as such on the same date.
K. Daphtary, H. K. Puri and B. N. Kirpal, for respondents Nos.
On 1 1 1952 all the petitioners were promoted as I.T.0s.
6 to 13.
Most of the respondents had already been companyfirmed on various dates in 1946, 1947 and 1948.
On 29 4 1949 a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee took place and the Committee agreed that promotions to Income tax officers Class I Service, of officers recruited in 1944 on the results of the I.A. A.S. and Allied Services examination held in 1943, and on other bases, should be given effect to from the 1st August 1948.
67 to 70 were actually promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 21 7 48.
S. Javali and M. Veerappa, for respondent No.
K. Daphtary and Mohan Behari Lal, for respondent No.
Against this decision Jaisinghani filed an appeal to this Court.
Fifteen others S. Nos.
6 to 10, 30 to 34 and 39.
On 1 8 53, a revised seniority list was issued.
Gopalakrishnan, for interveners Nos.
72 86 mentioned above, exist the names of the present respondents 12 24 and respondents 29 and 30.
L. Sibbal, B. P. Maheshwari, A. N. Pareek and R. K. Maheshwari, for interveners Nos.
This decision affected respondents Nos.
5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 and respondent No.
K. Daphtary and P. C. Bhartari, for respondent No.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. 16 Officers of the Income tax Department have tiled this petition under Art.
The result is that both batches of promotees of 1948 will remain senior to the direct recruits from the 1945 Examination who joined in 1946.
The petitioners were all companyfirmed as Asstt.
12 to 14 and 1 5 to 24.
On 18 10 1951, the Government decided on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C. and in modification of para 2 d of the Finance Department Central Revenues letter dated 29 9 1944, that for a period of five years in the first instance, 66 2/3 of the vacancies in Class T,Grade II, will, be filled by direct recruit 1 1967 2 S.C.R. 703.
72 to 86 were promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 29 4 1949, but the records show that the meeting was originally companyvened for 6 9 48 and the agenda etc.
12 to 24, 29 and 30.
J. Raja, B. R. Agarwala and Janandra Lal, for respondent No.
In the serial Nos.
Mohan Kumaramangalam and R. Gopalakrisnan, for the petitioners.
Yogeshwar Prasad and S. Bagga, for intervener No.
ment via Combined Competitive Examination and the remaining 33 1/3 by promotion on the basis of selection from Grade III Class II service .
CI./70 4 given preferential treatment in the matter of seniority in Class I Grade II itself and for further promotion to higher grades by framing rules which were discriminatory and which made hostile discrimination against Class I direct recruits like the petitioners.
3 to 5.
R. Rajagopal, S. K. Dholakia and Vineet Kumar, for res pondents Nos.
A writ petition was filed by Joshi in the Supreme Court and this Court delivered its judgment in Jaisinghanis Appeal and Joshis Writ Petition on 22 2 67, and the present Writ Petition was filed in July 1967.
32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the fundamental rights.
Petition under Art.
On 25 4 62 Jaisinghani filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and the High Court delivered its judgment on 11 3 64.
This order was held to be statutory by this Court in Jaisinghanis case 1 .
Apart from respondents 28, 29 and 30, all other respondents were companyfirmed in earlier years.
32 , regarding proposed Seniority Rules.
To resume the narrative, the petitioners companypleted their probationary periods on different dates in 1949 and were companyfirmed as I.T.Os Class 1, Grade II in 1949 and 1950, except petitioner No.
242/67 under Art.
Niren De, Attorney Gereral, N. S. Bindra, R. N. Sachthey and P. Nayar, for respondent No.
On 14 6 49 representations were made by direct recruits including petitioners Nos.
Commissioners In 1959.
On 9 9 1949 Seniority Rules were framed and a seniority list of Class 1, Grade II, Income tax officers, as on the 1st Jan. 1950, was drawn up and circulated by a letter dated 24 1 1950.
It was stated in this letter that Government was prepared to companysider any representation that they may have to make in regard to the accuracy of the data companytained therein, up to the 28th February 1950, but numberrepresentation against the principles for the determination of seniority will be entertained.
9 Shri D. N. Pande, who was companyfirmed on 22 12 1951.
146 of 1967.
