The companynter of the Union of India further stated that as the seniority principles enunciated by the Government in their letter of January 6, 1960 had raised a companytroversy, the Government referred the matter to the second respondent under Art.
As the finalisation of the seniority list was expected to take some time it was felt desirable to freeze the position of officers in the two departments as on a particular point of time so that changes introduced thereafter in one Service did number affect the members of the other Service ,on a lasting and irretrievable basis.
When the impugned letter,dated April 7, 1970 gave time tilltime till May 15, 1970, calling on any member of the service to point out any factual mistakes or errors in the application of the principles enunciated in the said letter, it appears all the petitioners made representations in which they asserted that the integrate on of the two Services having taken place on August 15, 1959, and number on April 1, 1959, they were entitled to be included in the initial companystitution of the companybined Service and on the application of the principles enunciated in the, said letter numberdistinction companyld be made between in the direct recruits appointed to the Indian Customs Service Class I a and the Central Excise, Service Class I in the years 1955 to 1958 and the direct recruits appointed to the said two Services in the year 1959 In their representations the petitioners had claimed that they be placed above respondent 3 and requested that till this matter was decided persons from the companybined seniority list below Serial No 73 should number be made, but in spite of this request, even before the date calling for representations expired, some Officers were promoted an May 11, 1970, without companysidering their claims.
challenge the decision of the first respondent, the Union of India, fixing the principles of seniority of members of the Customs and Central Excise Service Class I as if the companybined Service came into existence on April 1, 1959, instead of August 15, 1959 the date on which the Presidential Resolution dated August 12, 1959 said that the companybined Service would companye into effect.
The petitioners companyntered this objection by pointing out, firstly, that the letter of January 6, 1960 was addressed to the Heads of Departments who were asked to companymunicate the decision to those officers whose names figured in the list and since the petitioners were appointed after April 1, 1959, their names did number appear and the decision was number companymunicated to them, secondly, the letter of April 7, 1970, itself clearly stated that everything done earlier by the Government was provisional.
The date chosen was 1st April, 1959 though the formal resolution to merge the two services was published on 12th August 1959.
The Government took a decision to change the date of companystitution of the cadre in 1960.
The first respondent in its companynter affidavit stated that the idea of having a separate Class I Service for the Central Excise Department was mooted for the first time in 1944, tit the final companystitution of the.
The petitioners who joined Class I service in July 19 59 were rightly number included in the companybined seniority list of 6th January, 1960.
For the respondent The decision to merge the two services was taken in March 1959 and an official companymittee was appointed to determine the inter se seniority.
It was also stated that the order companystituting the Central Excise Service Class I with effect from July 1, 1955, provided that future vacancies in the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise Class I will be filled up by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 11 and that when the final decision to merge the Indian Customs Service Class I and the Central Excise Service Class I was taken by the Government in March 1959, an Official Committee was set up to make recommendations regarding the determination of inter se seniority in the merged service of the officers in position in the two companystituent Services at the time of integration.
Central Excise Service Class I took place only with effect from July 1, 1955 that after the idea of companystituting a Central Excise Service was mooted in 1944 the first respondent says that training in central excise work was given to Officers recruited to the Indian Customs Service and even right from 1950 the numberification issued by the second respondent for the companybined I. A. S. Examination stated that the direct recruitment was to the Indian Customs and Excise Service even though there was numbersuch service in existence upto July 1, 1955 and that even after the formation of the Service with effect from July 1, 1955, and upto its subsequent integration with the Indian Customs Service in 1959 the numberification issued by the second respondent stated that the recruitment was to the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Class I and number to the Indian Customs Service and the Central Excise Service separately, though the actual allocation of the candidates between the two Services was made by the Department of Revenue.
6, 1960, stated that the decision taken by the Government was final.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. Six petitioners, of whom the 4th peti tioner has since died.
For the first time in the letter of 7th April, 1970, 1st April, 1959 was taken as the date on which, the two services were merged and the petitioners made representations against the said arbitrary date.
As the companybined list of seniority of Officers in the Service was prepared with reference to April 1, 1959 as being the date of the merger, the petitioners companyplain that they were excluded from the list of Officers appointed to the initial companystitution of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Class 1, even though they had joined the two separate Services on July 13, 1969, as a companysequence of whichpersons who would be juniors, if the principles of seniority were made applicable tothem, have become senior and have been promoted by overlooking their claims.
Even in this letter, 1st April, 1959, has number been shown as the date on which the two Services were to be integrated, but only that it was proposed to safeguard a particular number of posts in the Department on a particular date, namely, 1st April, 1959.
The petitioners have number raised any objection regarding the merger from 1959 to 1970 and it was number open to them to approach this Court after such long delay.
The seniority list published on 6th January, 1960 was based on the position as it was on 1st April.
The petitioners say that companytrary to the Presidential Resolution of August 12, 1959, creating the companybined Service of Customs and ,Central Excise, Class 1, companyprising of all the existing members of both the Services as from August 15, 1959, the impugned decision of the Government which prescribed the principles of seniority of members of the two individual Services as if the companybined Service came into existence on April 1, 1959, would affect their seniority as they would be companysidered to be appointed only after the companystitution of the companybined Service, when in fact they were members of one or other of the two Services on the date when the companybined Service was created.
Accordingly the date, April 1, 1959, was chosen though the formal resolution to merge the two Services was published only on August 12, 1959.
Since after this date some juniors were promoted, the petitioners approached this Court.
Similarly, petitioners 1 5 were 1959, as probationary Assistant Collectors of Customs in the Indian Customs Service Class I on the result same date, namely, from July 13, of the companybined companypetitive examination held by the second respondent in 1958 vide numberification of the Government of India Customs Establishment dated August 4, 1959 .
As stated in paragraph 5 of the letter of 7th April, 1970 by taking the artificial date of 1st April, 1959 the petitioners have been discriminated against as the direct recruits of the year 1958 have been included in the initial companystitution of the service and the petitioners who were direct recruits of the year 1959 and who at the time of the integration of the two services were existing officers and formed the cadre of the companybined services had number been so included.
Petitioners 2, 3, 4 6 were appointed as probationary Superintendents of Central Excise Class I in the Central Excise Service lass with effect from July 13, 1959 on the result of the companybined companypetitive examination held by the second respondent, the Union Public Service Commission, in 1958 vide numberification of the Government of India Central Excise Establishment dated August 4, 1959 .
With the merger, the two services will become one and officers of the companybined service, as a whole, will be companysharers of the future Prospects and vicissitudes of the companybined service.
32 of Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental rights.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Pending finalisation of seniority list it was decided to freeze the position as on a particular point of time.
1959 and the promotions made in the service after that date have been ignored, Direct recruits who joined the Class I service and officers promoted after 1 st April, 1959 did number figure in the seniority list circulated on 6th January, 1959.
On objections having been raised by the service associations the matter was referred to the Union Public Service Commission in 1967 and on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission a final decision was taken on 7th April, 1970.
Under Art.
286 of 1970.
Das and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondents.
ARGUMENTS For the Petitioners By Presidential resolution dated 12th August, 1959 the Indian Customs Service Class I and the Central Excise Service Class I were integrated with effect.
The resolution also stated that the service will initially be formed from amongst all the existing class I officers of the Customs and Central Excise Services, who will henceforth be borne on a single companybined cadre for all purposes.
N. Prasad, for the petitioners.
from 15th August, 1959.
An objection was sought to be taken on the ground that there was an inordinate delay in the petitioners presenting the writ petition after over ten years even though the letter of January.
320 3 b of the Constitution, and ultimately the letter of April 7, 1970 was issued accepting number only the principles evolved by the second respondent, but also the date April 1, 1959, as the date on which the integration of Services were to companye into effect as previously indicated in the first respondents letter of January 6, 1960.
