1988 (11) TMI 353 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and correctness of seniority lists published in 1991, 1993, and 1994.
2. Violation of the quota rule for promotion and nomination.
3. Interpretation and application of Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class-I (Recruitment) Rules, 1982.
4. Impact of fortuitous appointments on seniority.
5. Timeliness and laches in challenging the seniority lists.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and correctness of seniority lists published in 1991, 1993, and 1994:
The appellants challenged the seniority lists published in 1991, 1993, and 1994, arguing that they were prepared contrary to the rules. The Tribunal initially rejected the appellants' petition, holding that the government had taken a conscious decision to promote departmental candidates in consultation with the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and that the seniority lists were valid. However, the Supreme Court found the Tribunal's judgment unsustainable, concluding that the seniority lists were prepared in violation of the rules and needed to be quashed and set aside.

2. Violation of the quota rule for promotion and nomination:
The appellants argued that the government violated the quota rule by promoting departmental candidates beyond the prescribed ratio. The rules stipulated a 60:40 ratio for promotion and nomination for the first three years and 50:50 thereafter. Despite this, the government promoted 747 Sales Tax Officers Class-II to Class-I in violation of the quota rule. The Supreme Court found that the promotions were indeed made in violation of the quota rule and that the seniority lists were unsustainable as they did not adhere to the prescribed ratios.

3. Interpretation and application of Rule 4A of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Officers Class-I (Recruitment) Rules, 1982:
Rule 4A was inserted retrospectively, allowing the government to relax the quota rule in consultation with the MPSC if service exigencies required. The Tribunal held that the word "may" in Rule 4A was directory. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, interpreting "may" as "shall," making consultation with the MPSC mandatory. The Court found that the MPSC had resisted relaxing the quota rule and only relented in 1989, suggesting the amendment to include Rule 4A. The Court concluded that the government did not comply with Rule 4A's requirements while promoting the departmental candidates, rendering the promotions and subsequent seniority lists invalid.

4. Impact of fortuitous appointments on seniority:
The appellants contended that the promotees' appointments were provisional and fortuitous, and thus, their period of service should not be counted for seniority. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the promotees' appointments were fortuitous and until further orders, and no regularisation order was issued. Consequently, the period of fortuitous service had to be excluded when determining seniority. The Court directed that the seniority lists be revised to reflect the correct dates of regular appointments, excluding the fortuitous service period.

5. Timeliness and laches in challenging the seniority lists:
The Tribunal held that the appellants' challenge was belated and suffered from laches. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellants had made timely representations against the seniority lists published in 1991, 1993, and 1994. The Court concluded that the appellants' actions were not barred by laches, as they had consistently pursued their grievances through appropriate channels.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and quashed the seniority lists of 1991, 1993, and 1994. The Court directed the respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list based on the date of regular appointments, excluding the period of fortuitous service. The new seniority list was to be finalised within six months.