1974 (4) TMI 113 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the quota rule and seniority rule post-15-1-1959.
2. Preparation of a new seniority list as per the Supreme Court's directions.
3. Validity and fairness of the new seniority rule under Article 16 of the Constitution.
4. Impact of the new seniority rule on the promotees, especially the 73 spillover promotees.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Quota Rule and Seniority Rule Post-15-1-1959:
The Supreme Court held that the quota rule, which allocated 66 1/2 % of the posts to direct recruits and 33 1/2 % to promotees, collapsed with the decision to promote a large number of Income-tax Officers from Class II to Class I. Consequently, the seniority rule, which gave weightage to promotees of 2 to 3 years, also broke down. The court directed the government to devise a just and fair seniority rule in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission, effective from 16-1-1959.

2. Preparation of a New Seniority List:
The court mandated the preparation of a fresh seniority list, setting aside the list prepared on 15-7-1968. The new list was to be prepared in light of the court's observations, with the seniority list from 1951 to 15-1-1959 being prepared according to the quota rule of 1951 read with the seniority Rule 1(f)(iii). For the period post-16-1-1959, the list was to be prepared according to a new rule framed by the government.

3. Validity and Fairness of the New Seniority Rule under Article 16:
The new seniority rule, effective from 16-1-1959, was framed by the President under Article 309 of the Constitution and was challenged as unjust, unfair, and violative of the promotees' fundamental rights under Article 16. The rule stipulated that seniority among promotees and direct recruits would be in the ratio of 1:1, determined by a roster. The court found that the government had followed the directions given in the judgment and that the new rule was a necessary substitute for maintaining the continuity and regulation of the service cadre.

4. Impact on Promotees, Especially the 73 Spillover Promotees:
The promotees argued that they should be absorbed on a "priority basis" and that their seniority should not be prejudiced. The court clarified that the 73 spillover promotees, who had no quota posts for absorption on 16-1-1959, were to be governed by the new seniority rule, which allocated alternate posts to promotees and direct recruits. The contention that their appointments should be regarded as valid under Rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules and that their seniority should be determined by their dates of appointment was rejected. The court held that the new seniority rule was just and fair, considering the overall context and the necessity of integrating the service cadre.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the new seniority list prepared by the government as per its directions and found the new seniority rule to be just and fair. The court emphasized that the rule was necessary for maintaining the continuity and proper regulation of the service cadre, and it did not violate Article 16 of the Constitution. The seniority list filed on 15-2-1973 was accepted as correct, and there was no order as to costs.