1980 (4) TMI 301 - SC - Income Tax

Recruitment procedure - scheme of reorganisation of the Services - quota system - Held that - It is necessary to recall that for nearly a decade after 1950 appointments of promotes were made far in excess of the quota available to them. So long as the quota rule operated it was possible to regularize their appointments when posts within their quota became available in later years. But a somewhat unprecedented ed situation arose by the upgrading of Class II posts to Class I Grade II, - 100 of the month January 16 1959 and 114 on December 9 1960. This massive upgrading of posts brought about a collapse of the quota rule. Subsequent absorption in posts which become available for being filled up later really means regularization of appointments which is possible provided there is no excessive deviation from the quota rule. We quite appreciate that no blame can be laid at the doors of the promotes on the score that they were appointed in excess of the quota available to them. Perhaps their appointments must even have enabled the administration to tide over administrative stalemate. But the tough problem which the administration has to face is that whereas it is necessary to recognize and protect the claims of promotes who are appointed in excess of their quota it is equally necessary to ensure that the direct recruits do not suffer an undue set back in service on account of the excessive appointments of promotes. The conflicting claims of the two components of Service both having an importance of their own have therefore to be reconciled. It was with that object that the rules have been modified from time to time. The judgments rendered by this Court in matters which the petitioners want to be reopened show without a shadow of doubt how every effort was made to ensure that no hardship or injustice is caused to the promotes merely because their appointments exceeded their quota. The Court adopted what it considered in the circumstances to be a satisfactory and scientific method of ascertaining the number of vacancies available for being filled up. It came to the conclusions that the number; of actual appointments should determine the number of vacancies available which with great respect was a perfectly legitimate conclusion to draw. In the grey area where service rules operate more than one view is always possible to take without sacrificing either reason or commonsense but the ultimate choice has to be necessarily conditioned by several considerations ensuring justice to as many as possible and injustice to as few. We also find it impossible to hold that there was any error in the conclusions in Jaisinghani (1967 (2) TMI 30 - SUPREME Court) that rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules was a statutory rule. Subsequent decisions would show that there was hardly any dispute between the parties at later stages at any rate that rule 4 was a statutory rule. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Disputes between promotees and direct recruits regarding seniority.
2. Validity and interpretation of seniority rules.
3. Application and effect of quota rules.
4. Review of previous Supreme Court judgments.
5. Allegations of missing files and withheld information.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disputes between promotees and direct recruits regarding seniority:

The judgment highlights the ongoing disputes between promotees and direct recruits in various government departments, particularly in the Income Tax Department. The promotees argued that previous decisions by the Supreme Court were erroneous and that the seniority rules were not properly understood or implemented. The petitioners, all promotees, sought relief from the perceived injustices in the seniority lists and rules.

2. Validity and interpretation of seniority rules:

The judgment discusses the history of seniority rules and their amendments over time. Initially, the Government of India laid down rules of seniority in 1950, which were revised in 1952. The promotees contended that these rules were discriminatory and led to their disadvantage. The Supreme Court had previously upheld the seniority rules in various cases, including Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India. The promotees challenged these rulings, arguing that the rules were based on unjustifiable classifications and did not account for the realities of their service.

3. Application and effect of quota rules:

The quota rules, which determined the proportion of vacancies to be filled by direct recruits and promotees, were a significant point of contention. The promotees argued that the quota rules were not statutory and should not have been strictly enforced. They contended that the appointments made in excess of the quota were not invalid and should have been regularized. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that the quota rules were statutory and must be adhered to, leading to the demotion of promotees appointed in excess of their quota.

4. Review of previous Supreme Court judgments:

The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's previous decisions in Jaisinghani, the 1st Gupta case, the 2nd Gupta case, and Jangamayya. They argued that these decisions were based on incorrect assumptions and incomplete information. The Supreme Court, however, found no compelling reason to reopen these cases. The Court emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and the need to avoid endless re-litigation of settled issues.

5. Allegations of missing files and withheld information:

The petitioners alleged that the Government of India had withheld crucial information and files during the previous litigation, which could have influenced the Court's decisions. The Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions had also expressed concern over missing files and the lack of transparency. Despite these allegations, the Supreme Court found that the previous decisions were based on the best available information and that there was no new evidence to warrant a review.

Separate Judgment by Desai, J.:

Justice Desai dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the previous decisions should be reconsidered in light of new evidence and the findings of the Rajya Sabha Committee on Petitions. He contended that the quota rules were not statutory and that the seniority rules were unfair to promotees. He suggested that the petitions be placed before a larger Bench for reconsideration.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the previous decisions and the validity of the seniority rules. The Court emphasized the need for finality in litigation and found no compelling reason to reopen the settled issues. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.