P N JHMGAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a result of the combined competitiveexamination for Indian Administrative and allied central services held in September, 1952, the four petitioners, who have filedthis writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, wererespectively placed at positions Nos. 152, 161, 178 and 191. AThe petitioners were found eligible for appointment in the IndianIncome Tax Service Class I but since 150 (and according to thepetitioners 151) persons were selected for appointment, thepetitioners were not absorbed in the said service and they wereoffered the posts of Income-Tax Officers in Class II Grade III (which have a lower pay scale) and the petitioners state thatsimilarly placed candidates had been informed that their acceptanceof the offer would not prejudice their case for being consideredfor appointment in Class I service. "The petitioners joinedClass II service in 1954 and at present Shri Jhingan and SbriBraham Dev Sethi, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are serving as Income-Tax Officers while Shri C. Satyanarayana, petitioner No. 2and Shri R. L. Bhutani, petitioner No. 4 are working as Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax.

(2.) It appears that in the Income-Tax Service Class I, therewas what has come to be known as the "Quota Rule" accordingto which the appointment of direct recruits (as a result of thecompetitive examination) had to bear a certain proportion topromotions to the said service from Class II, Grade III. Thisratio was previously 80:20, but at the relevant time was twothirdsand one-third. The Government had been treating theQuota Rule as administrative instructions and so were not strictlyfollowing it, which resulted in disproportion of the appointmentssometimes in favour of the direct recruits and at othertimes the promotees. The matter ultimately came up before theSupreme Court in S. G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India. (A.I.R.1967 Supreme Court 1427)(1). In this decision, the SupremeCourt held that the aforesaid Quota Rule had a statutory force and should be observed and the Court issued a mandamus commandingthe authorities concerned "to adjust the seniority of thepetitioner and other officers similarly placed like him and to preparea fresh seniority list in accordance with law after adjustingthe recruitment for the perio^ 1951 to 1956 and onwards in accordance with the aforesaid Quota Rule." In obedience to themandamus of the Supreme Court, the authorities prepared aseniority list in July, 1968 which has been struck down by DivisionBench of this Court in Mohan Chandra Josh! vs. The Unionof India Civil Writ No. 550 of 1970 decided on 25/03/1971 (2) but the same is, on a certificate granted by this Court, thesubject-matter of an appeal pending in the Supreme Court. Therehave been a number of other offshoots following upon the decision in Jaisinghania's case(1) and one matter came up before theHigh Court of Madras in P. R. Sharma vs. Union of India, CivilWrit No. 396 of 1967 decided on 18/08/1970(3) to whicha detailed reference would be made hereafter.

(3.) The allegation of the petitioners unfolded by the writ petitionis that the position of appointments from May, 1952 to1954, as detailed in the petition, yielded a shortfall of vacanciesin the places reserved for the direct recruits which had been occupiedby the promotees. These promotees have, as a result ofthe application of the Quota Rule, under directions of the SupremeCourt, been brought down and their posts have, therefore,to be filled in by direct recruits. The petitioners contend thatthese posts should, instead of being filled by direct recruits onfresh examinations held in subsequent years, be offered to thepetitioners who had qualified in the 1952 examination and wereeligible to be appointed to Class I Service and who would havesecured the posts but for their illegal occupation by promoteesand consequently the petitioners claim that they be treated ashaving joined the Income-tax Service Class I, Grade II from thedate of their appointments and be treated as having qualified forbeing appointed as Assistant Commissioner and their senioritybe accordingly refixed. Respondents Nos. 5 to 74 are the promoteeswho are alleged to be affected by the relief claimed in thewrit petition but they have not appeared to contest this petition.Respondent No. 4 is the Union Public Service Commission andrespondent No. 1 is the Union of India while respondents Nos. 2and 3 are the public authorities concerned.