9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioners. 2. Requirement of 10 years' experience for promotion. 3. Evaluation of merit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). 4. Field of choice for promotion. 5. Compliance with administrative instructions and statutory rules. 6. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 7. Date for determining eligibility for promotion. Detailed Analysis: 1. Correctness of the Selection List: The principal question was whether the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioners was correct. The selection list was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) based on the seniority list approved by the Supreme Court on April 16, 1974, in Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India. 2. Requirement of 10 Years' Experience: The Gujarat High Court held that the requirement of 10 years' experience for promotion, as laid down in a Government of India letter dated January 16, 1950, was violated because the DPC considered persons with 8 years' experience. However, the Supreme Court found that the requirement of 10 years' experience was modified to 8 years through administrative instructions and correspondence between the Finance Ministry, Home Ministry, and the Union Public Service Commission. The Court concluded that the requirement of 10 years' experience was not a statutory rule and had been effectively modified to 8 years. 3. Evaluation of Merit by the DPC: The High Court held that the DPC did not properly evaluate the merit of persons in the field of choice. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the DPC followed the principles set out in the Memorandum dated May 16, 1957, which emphasized merit over seniority. The DPC classified officers as "outstanding," "very good," and "good" based on their service records and prepared the selection list accordingly. 4. Field of Choice for Promotion: The High Court criticized the DPC for not extending the field of choice to five times the number of vacancies, as recommended in the Memorandum. The Supreme Court found that the field of choice had been prepared based on running seniority, an administrative practice followed for over 10 years. The DPC considered 276 names out of 336 sent by the Government, adhering to the principle of running seniority and the modified requirement of 8 years' experience. 5. Compliance with Administrative Instructions and Statutory Rules: The respondents contended that the selection violated the rule framed by the Government of India for promotion to selection posts. The Supreme Court found that the administrative instructions from the Home Ministry dated May 16, 1957, were generally applicable and had been adapted by the DPC for promotions within the Income Tax Department. The Court upheld the DPC's adherence to these instructions. 6. Alleged Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 16: The respondents argued that the selection was arbitrary and violated Article 16 of the Constitution. They claimed that promotee officers with more than 8 years' service were excluded, while direct recruits with less than 8 years' service were included. The Supreme Court found that the DPC's selection was based on running seniority and the modified 8-year experience rule. The Court held that the selection was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 7. Date for Determining Eligibility for Promotion: The respondents contended that eligibility should be determined based on the dates of provisional promotions permitted by the Supreme Court on December 21, 1972, and subsequent Government orders. The Supreme Court clarified that the eligibility for promotion should be decided with reference to the date of the DPC meeting, as always done in past meetings. The Court emphasized that promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioners are to be made prospectively, not retrospectively. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders of the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. It held that the selection list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee was correct, lawful, and valid. The appeals were allowed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
