In the meanwhile, on July 15, 1968, the Government prepared a fresh seniority list and filed it in this Court.
The request for review of those decisions was made for the first time by the petitioners by paragraph 3 of their supplementary affidavit in rejoinder which was filed in this Court in April 1978.
Respondent 359, Mohan Chandra Joshi, who was recruited directly as I.T.O., Class I, in 1953 was also holding a similar rank and was working as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
That list failed to satisfy promotees as well as direct recruits, 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.
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.
196 of 1970 filed by B. S. Gupta was dismissed whereas Writ Petition No.
Respondents 4, 7 and 8 are Assistant Commissioners of Income tax while respondents 5 and 6 are working as Deputy Directors of Investigation.
Writ Petition No.
Petitioners 2 and 3, BikashMohan Das Gupta and Sushil Ranjan Das, were promoted as Inspectors of Income tax in April, 1955.
1 was promoted to that cadre on January, 1, 1966.
Class I, were appointed on probation as Class I Officers after Petitioner No.
4146 of 1978 the Petitioner, Hundraj Kanyalal Sajnani, was appointed directly on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission as I.T.O., Class II Trainee on July 1,1947.
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.
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.
The former was promoted as I.T.O., Class II in December, 1957 and as I.T.O., Class I, in May, 1971 while the latter was promoted as I.T.O., Class II, in August, 1973.
550 of 1970 filed by M. C. Joshi was substantially allowed.
In fact, Shri B. S. Gupta figures in two cause titles known as the first Gupta case and the Second Gupta case.
Respondents 280 to 357 were appointed on probation as I.T.Os.,
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.
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.
in July 1950.
Respondents 6 to 357 who were recruited directly as I.T.Os.,
On January 1, 1966 he was promoted as Income tax Officer, Class I, which post he was holding on the date of the petition, Februarys, 1974.
In 1959 60 he was promoted as I.T.O., Class I, and was companyfirmed in that cadre with effect from December 9, 1960.
Respondents 4 to 8 are B.D. Roy, S.G. Jaisinghani, M.C. Joshi, B.S. Gupta and M. Jangamayya respectively.
2 was promoted to that cadre in May 1971.
The aforesaid decision was given by this Court on February 2, 1967.
Public servants ought number to be driven or required to dissipate their time and energy in companyrtroom battles.
A virtual review is thus asked for, opening flood States to fresh litigation.
There are few other litigative areas than disputes between members of various services inter se, where the principle that public policy requires that all litigation must have an end can apply with greater force.
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.
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, ii M.C. Joshi and iii 5 promotees.
Promotees who were likely to be affected by the decision of the Writ Petition were added as respondents 4 to 126 to that Petition.
Those proceedings were dismissed by this Court on November 6, 1968.
66 of 1974 of K.K. Dutta and others which was filed on February 8, 1974 numberdemand was made for the review of the decisions earlier given by this Court on the points under companysideration.
In Writ Petition No.
Class I, after Petitioner No.
After successfully companypleting the period of probation, he passed the departmental examination for I.T.Os.
These writ petitions were heard by two separate Benches of the Delhi High Court.
Respondent No.
Jaisinghani who was recruited directly as an Income tax Officer, Class I Grade II , raised four principal companytentions Rule 1 f iii of the seniority rules as framed in 1952 was based upon an unjustifiable classification between direct recruits and promoters after they had entered Class I, Grade II Service.
Sajnani asked by paragraph 51 of his petition, and so did the petitioners in the companypanion petitions asked by their supplementary rejoinder, that the decision of this Court in Union of India v. M. Jangamayya should also be reviewed.
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.
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.
He was promoted as an Assistant Commissioner of Income tax with effect from December 17, 1969.
5 of 1966 filed by Mohan Chandra Joshi under Article 32 of the Constitution, a similar mandamus was issued by the Court.
By paragraph 45 of his Writ Petition, which was filed on June 27, 1978 Sajnani did companytend that the aforesaid judgments be reviewed since they were wrongly decided.
Thus the direct recruits succeeded substantially in their companytentions, 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.
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.
He was posted at the relevant time as the Deputy Director of Investigation, New Delhi.
