9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over seniority of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers appointed in 1972, 1973, and 1974. Challenge to provisional seniority list. Guidelines for fixing seniority. Interpretation of cadre strength and seniority criteria. Dispute regarding temporary and permanent posts. Consideration of transferees for seniority. Review of seniority list based on substantive vacancies. Appeals by State Government against High Court directions. Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) by transferees/promotes. Issue 1: Dispute over Seniority and Provisional Seniority List The case involves a dispute over the seniority of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers appointed in 1972, 1973, and 1974. The litigation arose from a provisional seniority list published by the State Government in 1985. The petitioners challenged the list, alleging non-compliance with relevant rules for fixing seniority. The High Court invalidated the provisional list and provided guidelines for drafting the seniority list, emphasizing the unit of each year for seniority determination and the criterion of probation commencement for inter se seniority. Issue 2: Interpretation of Cadre Strength and Seniority Criteria The State Government appealed the High Court's decision, particularly contesting the direction related to Assistant Commercial Tax Officers in the impugned seniority list. The dispute centered on the term "permanent cadre strength" and the inclusion of temporary posts in cadre strength. The State argued for considering transferees holding temporary posts for seniority, asserting a distinction between temporary appointments to permanent posts and regular appointments to temporary posts. Issue 3: Review of Seniority List and Substantive Vacancies The High Court's analysis highlighted the importance of substantive vacancies in determining seniority. It emphasized that the seniority list revision should focus on permanent cadre strength and substantive vacancies, excluding temporary posts. The Court referred to a tabular statement indicating the allocation of vacancies between direct recruits and transferees, emphasizing the need to adhere to the quota for direct recruits. Issue 4: Consideration of Transferees for Seniority The judgment addressed the status of transferees who could not be accommodated within their quota. It cited precedents to assert that transferees must yield their positions to direct recruits when regular appointments are made. The Court emphasized the need to prioritize seniority based on substantive vacancies and permanent cadre strength, dismissing claims of seniority by transferees exceeding their quota. Issue 5: Appeals and Special Leave Petitions The State Government filed appeals against the High Court's directions, challenging specific aspects of the seniority criteria. Special Leave Petitions by transferees/promotes echoed the State's arguments but were dismissed due to lack of merit and failure to provide substantial evidence supporting their claims. The judgments affirmed the High Court's emphasis on permanent cadre strength for seniority determination and adherence to the quota for direct recruits. ---
|
