PADMANABHA BALIGA B Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON arguments were addressed in these writ petitions because the question of law raised is the same and facts are similar. They could also be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

(2.) AS facts are similar, it would be sufficient to make a detailed reference to the facts of only one of them, namely, Writ Petition No. 484 of 1966.

(3.) THE last two subsidiary points may be disposed of first before taking up for consideration the general questions of law as to the legal status and authority of the departmental promotions committee. Counsel of behalf of the department has placed before us the minutes of the meeting of the departmental promotions committee at which the cases of the petitioners in these four petitions and of the respondents (other than the departmental authorities) were considered for purposes of promotion. We find from the recorded minutes that the case of every one of these petitioners was examined along with the cases of the respondents mentioned above and other persons similarly situated and that the committee has recorded its opinion on all these cases briefly against the names of persons arranged according to their seniority. THE complaint, therefore, that the committee has not examined or considered the cases of the petitioners has to be rejects as not made out.