TARNI PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Shri Tarni Prasad, an upper division clerk in the office of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax, Northern Range, Patna to quash the circulars dated the 16th April, 1960 and the 19th November, 1960 (Annexures 2 and 3 respectively to the writ application), issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The grievance of the petitioner is that the circulars aforesaid are violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, in that they deny equal opportunity to the petitioner fur getting promotion to the post of an Inspector in the Income -Tax Department. The posts of Income -Tax Inspectors are filled up by promotion from the cadre of upper division clerks as also from similar other cadres and by direct recruitment; the ratio being two -third for the former class and one -third for the latter.

(2.) Our attention was drawn during the course of the hearing of this writ application to certain rules of the departmental examinations to be found in the Central Board of Revenue Office Procedure Manual published by the Government of India. The rules prescribe for examinations so that a member of the ministerial establishment who, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Income -Tax is likely to prove suitable for promotion to an executive post and who is not below of a particular age on the 1st of January of the year in which the examination is to be held and has also parsed the departmental examination for ministerial staff conducted by the Director of Inspection, is eligible to sit at the departmental examination to qualify himself for bring promoted to the rank of Inspector. In accordance with the circular of the Central Board of Revenue dated the 6th June, 1953 [vide letter no. 60(1) Adm. VII -53], upper division clerks to which rank the petitioner belongs were getting opportunities of being promoted as Income -Tax Inspectors more or less on the basis of their seniority provided they had passed the departmental examination or the qualifying examination referred to above. It appears from the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the department that giving opportunities to such persons on the basis of their seniority alone caused a sense of dissatisfaction and frustration amongst those who had passed the qualifying examination much earlier than those who were senior to them in the seniority list. They gave a ventilation to their grievances before the Direct Taxes Administration Enquiry Committee headed by Shri Mahabir Tyagi, Para 8.89 quoted from its Report in the counter -affidavit runs as follows: - -