9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appointments of certain Assistants. 2. Assignment of seniority to the petitioners. 3. Preliminary objection on the ground of laches. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Appointments of Certain Assistants: The officials who had been directly appointed as Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau in 1957 filed a writ petition in 1976 questioning the validity of the appointments of certain other Assistants. These Assistants had been appointed either prior to 1.2.1954 or before the induction of the writ petitioners into service. The High Court's Division Bench held that the posts of Assistants existing on 1.2.1954 should have been filled by eligible persons as per Paragraph 15 of the 1955 reorganization Scheme, and found an infringement of these terms in the appointments in question. However, the Supreme Court found it distressing that the validity of appointments made over 32 years ago was still being contested, emphasizing that government servants should not have to defend their appointments and seniority after such a long period. 2. Assignment of Seniority to the Petitioners: The seniority of Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau was initially fixed based on the 1949 Office Memorandum, which prioritized length of service. This was later superseded by the 1959 Office Memorandum, which based seniority on the date of confirmation. The petitioners, recruited through the Union Public Service Commission in 1955, joined in 1957 and were assigned seniority based on the 1959 Memorandum. However, the Supreme Court in a previous case (Union of India & Ors. v. M. Ravi Varma & Ors.) clarified that the 1959 Memorandum did not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the seniority list was revised in 1975, reverting to the principles of the 1949 Memorandum, which placed the respondents above the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this revised seniority list in 1976, but the Supreme Court noted that the seniority list had been issued in 1958 and no objections were raised by the petitioners until much later. 3. Preliminary Objection on the Ground of Laches: The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the writ petition on the ground of laches, arguing that the petitioners had delayed unreasonably in challenging the seniority list. The Supreme Court agreed with this objection, noting that the first draft seniority list was issued in 1958 and no objections were raised by the petitioners until 1976. The Court emphasized that satisfactory service conditions require stability and that government servants should not face uncertainty due to delayed legal challenges. The Court cited previous judgments, including R.S. Makashi & Ors. v. I.M. Menon & Ors., and Maloon Lawrence Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India & Ors., to support its position that challenges to seniority should be made promptly to avoid administrative complications and ensure efficiency in public service. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. The Court directed that all promotions in the Intelligence Bureau be reviewed in accordance with the seniority list dated January 28, 1976, and made no order as to costs.
|
