In the reply dated 15 10 1951 he was informed by the Government as follows appointments to Class I service are offered strictly in order of merit upto the number of vacancies available to candidates declared eligible for such appointments by the Union Public Service Commission on the results of the annual companybined companypetitive examinations.
He filed his writ petition before the circuit bench at Delhi in 1962 and in the companyrse of that litigation the appellant Krishnaswamy learnt that the vacancies in Class I, Grade II, for the year 1950 had been wrongly calculated by the Government and that posts to which the direct recruits ought to have been appointed had been illegally filled by the promotees.
1973 AIR 1168 1973 4 SCC 163 The Judgment was delivered by PALEKAR, J Per Palekar, JThese are appeals by certificate from an order of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi dated 16 9 1964 in Civil Writs Nos.
The appellant Krishnaswamy had appeared in the companypetitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1948 and if a vacancy was available and he was found eligible he would have been appointed directly to Class I, Grade II post.
Some 10 years later a direct recruit named Jaisinghani challenged the companyrectness of the seniority list of Income tax Officers prepared by the Government.
The appellants prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, the Union of India and others, to recognize and declare the appointments of the appellant Income tax Officers as having been made in Class I, Grade II, instead of Class II, Grade III to frame a list of seniority accordingly and to grant the appellants all companysequential reliefs following thereon.
But in the companypetitive examination his rank was 122 and since the Government recruited only 33 Income tax Officers directly that year he companyld number be accommodated.
He, therefore, made another representation to the Government companyplaining that he had been wrongly deprived of a post in Class I, Grade II service and that it should number be companysidered as if he had been appointed in that service from 1950 and given companysequential benefits.
His companyplaint was that more vacancies were given to the promotees than what they were entitled to under the rules and that by an artificial rule which gave the promotees weightage in seniority his own seniority in the seniority list had been companysiderably affected.
As the number of vacancies to be filled on the results of the 1948 examination was less than the number declared eligible on the results of that examination, candidates who though eligible ranked below the number required were number offered appointments to Class I Services.
Class I Officers were divided into two grades of Grade I and Grade II and Class II Officers were called Grade III Officers.
The High Court did number deal with these petitions separately on merits.
On this representation also being rejected Krishnaswamy and the other six appellants who had the same grievance filed separate writ petitions in the High Court.
Seven separate petitions were filed but the petitions were based on practically the same facts.
In 1951 he made a representation to the Government that he ought to have been appointed in Class I, Grade II and number in Class II, Grade III.
The respondent raised several companytentions including the companytention that the claim was stale and belated and that the petitions should be rejected on that ground alone.
In the circumstances, the Government of India are of opinion that there is numberground for legitimate grievance at all.
The rules referred to above were only companycerned with Class I, Grade II.
244D to 250D of 1963 dismissing the petitions.
So far as the respondents are companycerned the matter was closed in 1951.
