Subsequently, the seniority lists in the Grade of Assistants were again issued in 1961 and 1965 but again numberobjections were raised by the writ petitioners except petitioner No.
The Division Bench also gave some other ancillary directions resulting in the disturbance of the seniority of the respondents who had been working in the Intelligence Bureau.
By the date of the said judgment the said respondents had put in more than 25 years of service as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau.
The June 1975 seniority list was prepared having regard to the decision in Ravi Varmas case supra and the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the writ petitions filed by respondent Nos.
Although the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have number disposed of the above writ petition on the ground of delay, we feel that in the circumstances of this case the writ petition should have been rejected on the ground of delay alone.
7 and 36 had also filed writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the seniority list of Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau which had been issued in March, 1968.
Respondent Nos.
In 1959 the Ministry of Home Affairs issued another Office Memorandum No.
Respondent Nos.
It is essential that any one who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him should approach the companyrt as early as possible as otherwise in addition to the creation of a sense of insecurity in the minds of the Government servants there would also be administrative companyplications and difficulties.
The petitioners filed objections to the said seniority list.
Thus the list was finalised in January, 1976.
In the writ petition the petitioners questioned the validity of the above seniority list published in January, 1976.
2925 26 of 1981 From the Judgment and Order dated 19th December, 1980 of the Delhi High Court in Letter Patent Appeal No.
All Duty Posts in Category C were required by that Scheme to be filled by Assistants or U.D.Cs placed in charge of such posts.
Two of the respondents in the writ petition out of which these appeals arise, i.e., respondent Nos.
In accordance with the said Scheme the Ministerial Duty Posts were reorganised into following three categories Category A Administrative Officer and the Assistant Director Non Police Category B Superintendents and Assistant Superintendents Categoty C Assistants.
For the first time they filed the writ petition in the High Court in the year 1976 nearly 18 years after the first draft seniority list was published in the year 1958.
The officials who were shown as Respondent Nos.
The ministerial posts in the Intelligence Bureau were reorganised with effect from 1.2.1954 vide Ministry of Home Affairs Letter No.
The principle of fixation of seniority as laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No.
32 to 41, 50 and 51 are those officers who were promoted from the posts of U.D.Cs to the posts of Assistants against 15 quota of promotees prescribed in the reorganisation scheme.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgment dated 11.11.1974 on the basis of the decision in Ravi Varmas case supra held that the seniority of respondents 7 and 36 should be fixed on the basis of the 1949 Office Memorandum.
This principle of fixation of seniority was subsequently superseded by the Ministry of Home Affairs Office Memorandum No.
3 to 9, 12 to 31 and 42 to 49 in the Writ Petition were working as Assistants on 1.2.1954, i.e., the date of the reorganisation of the ministerial posts in the Intelligence Bureau.
20/1/40 Ests S dated 14.5.1940 was that if a vacancy arose in the cycle meant for a direct recruit, the direct recruit would rank senior to the departmental candidate even though the direct recruit joined the post after the departmental candidates had been promoted and companyfirmed.
Their objections were number accepted and a seniority list was issued in January, 1976 showing the officials who had been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition as seniors to the petitioners in the writ petition.
Satisfactory service companyditions postulate that there should be numbersense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by the writ petitions filed after several years as in this case.
6 of 1978.
The mode of initial companystitution of Grade IV, companyfirmation of the existing Assistants called departmental candidates at the initial stage and the future recruitment to Grade IV companysisting of Assistants were regulated by Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said Scheme.
The petitioners who filed the writ petition should have in the ordinary companyrse questioned the principle on the basis of which the seniority lists were being issued from time to time from the year 1958 and the promotions which were being made on the basis of the said lists within a reasonable time.
The respondents in the writ petition raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition stating that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, the Union of India as well as the officials, who had been appointed prior to the date on which the writ petitioners were appointed have filed these two appeals by special leave.
7 and 36 and thus the mistake that had crept into the 1968 list was rectified.
10 and 11 in the Writ Peti tion were appointed as direct recruits through other sources before the Intelligence Bureau Ministerial Reorganisation Scheme was issued on 17.8.1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the posts of Assistants which existed on 1.2.1954 had to be filled by persons who were eligible in terms of Paragraph 15 of the reorganisation Scheme of 1955 effective from 1.2.1954 and that there was infringement of the terms of Paragraph 15 in their cases.
The posts of Assistants were classified as belonging to Grade IV in the Intelligence Bureau Service.
The petitioners who had filed the Writ Petition were, however, recruited through the companypetitive examination held by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1955 against the 85 quota of direct recruitment provided for in the Scheme and they joined service in 1957.
6 who objected to the 1965 list.
9/11/55/IPS dated 22.12.1959 in supersession of the 1949 Office Memorandum laying down the principles of fixation of seniority.
638 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Delhi questioning the validity of the appointments of certain other Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of whom some had been appointed prior to 1.2.1954 and the remaining had been appointed or absorbed as Assistants prior to the induction of the writ petitioners into service as Assistants and also the assignment of seniority to them over and above the petitioners in the Writ Petition.
K. Garg, P.H. Parekh and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. Some of the officials who had been directly appointed as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau of the Government of India in the year 1957 filed a writ petition in the year 1976 in Civil Writ Petition No.
K. Ramamurthi and P.P. Singh for the Appellants.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners in the writ petition filed an appeal in the Letters Patent Appeal No.
6 of 1978 before a Division Bench of the High Court.
