9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. Validity of appointments and seniority of Income-tax officers. 3. Application of pre-constitution actions under Articles 14 and 16. 4. Delay in filing the petition under Article 32. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: The petitioners, confirmed Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax, claimed that their rights under Articles 14 and 16 were infringed due to the irregular and illegal appointments of respondents 6 to 39, who were also confirmed Assistant Commissioners. The petitioners argued that the Government breached the rules governing the service of Income-tax officers Class I, Grade II, by appointing respondents outside the prescribed quota, giving them preferential treatment in seniority and promotions. They relied on the principle laid down in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors. The respondents countered these contentions, with the Attorney General arguing that the acts in question occurred before the Constitution's advent and could not be challenged under Articles 14 and 16. 2. Validity of Appointments and Seniority of Income-tax Officers: The petitioners did not challenge the validity of the appointments but contested the recognition of the appointment dates for seniority purposes. They argued that appointments should be post-dated to comply with the quota rule. The Court examined the reorganization scheme and recruitment rules, noting that the Government and Federal Public Service Commission's understanding allowed for selections from existing Grade I officers of Class II Service. The Court found that the appointments were valid and could not be challenged due to pre-constitution actions, inordinate delay, and the acquisition of rights by respondents. 3. Application of Pre-Constitution Actions under Articles 14 and 16: The Court emphasized that the Constitution has no retrospective operation. Actions taken before the Constitution's commencement cannot be challenged under Articles 14 and 16. The Court cited Pannalal Binjrai v. Union of India, where it was established that Article 13 has no retrospective effect. The Court distinguished the present case from Shanti Sarup v. Union of India, noting that the latter involved post-constitution actions. The Court concluded that the petitioners could not complain about breaches of Articles 14 and 16 for acts done before the Constitution came into force. 4. Delay in Filing the Petition under Article 32: The Court addressed the significant delay in filing the petition, noting that it was brought about 15 years after the 1952 Seniority Rules were promulgated. The Court held that delay could be fatal in certain circumstances, as established in M/s. Tilokchand Motichand's case. The Court emphasized that it must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice, and good conscience. The Court found no reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting the argument that ongoing representations to the Government justified it. The Court concluded that the petitioners' delay in approaching the Court was inordinate and unjustified. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed due to the pre-constitution nature of the challenged actions, the inordinate delay in filing the petition, and the acquisition of rights by the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of timely legal challenges and the principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.
|
