12 to 24, 29 and 30.
Fifteen others S. Nos.
This order was held to be statutory by this Court in Jaisinghanis case .
Not only were they thus illegally absorbed into service but were also 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.
To resume the narrative, the petitioners companypleted their probationary periods on different dates in 1949 and were companyfirmed as I.T.Os Class I, Grade II in 1949 and 1950, except petitioner No.
Against this decision Jaisinghani filed an appeal to this Court.
72 86 mentioned above, exist the names of the present respondents 12 24 and respondents 29 and 30.
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.
On 9 9 1949 Seniority Rules were framed and a seniority list of Class I, Grade II, Income tax officers, as on the 1st Jan. 1950, was drawn up and circulated by a letter dated 24 1 1950.
Class I, Grade I, and companyfirmed also as such on the same date.
On 1 1 1952 all the petitioners were promoted as I.T.Os.
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.
In the serial Nos.
This decision affected respondents Nos.
Apart from respondents 28, 29 and 30, all other respondents were companyfirmed in earlier years.
9 Shri D. N. Pande, who was companyfirmed on 22 12 1951.
On 25 4 62 Jaisinghani filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and the High Court delivered its judgment on 11 3 64.
28 Shariff who is a petitioner in W.P. No.
In 1952 the Union of India passed an order purporting to be made under Section 3 4 , of Essential Supplies Temporary Powers Act, 1946, by which the Central Government appointed the same person, as an authorised companytroller under the provisions of that section ana directed him to run the said undertaking to the exclusion of all the other partners.
A wit 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.
5, 6, 8, 10 and 12 and respondent No.
67 to 70 were actually promoted on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 21 7 48.
Most of the respondents had already been companyfirmed on various dates in 1946, 1947 and 1948.
On 14 6 49 representations were made by direct recruits including petitioners Nos.
