2000 (1) TMI 1026 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors in Maharashtra.
2. Application of the principle of res judicata.
3. Interpretation of the quota rule and the phrase "as far as practicable."
4. Validity of promotions in excess of the prescribed quota.
5. Determination of seniority among promotes and direct recruits.
6. Validity of the certificate issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax.
7. Impact of the Government Resolution on seniority.
8. Whether the judgment in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 was in a representative capacity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors in Maharashtra:
The appellants, representing the promotes, challenged the seniority list notified on December 28, 1992, and amended on October 29, 1993, which determined the seniority of Sales Tax Inspectors (STIs) in the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The dispute centered around the fixation of seniority between promotes and direct recruits for the period from 1971 to December 31, 1987. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) dismissed the Original Application (O.A.) on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata, but also addressed the merits of the case to avoid remand if higher courts found otherwise.

2. Application of the principle of res judicata:
The MAT dismissed the O.A. on the basis that the issues raised had already been adjudicated in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The principle of res judicata was applied to prevent re-litigation of identical issues. The MAT concluded that the appellants' contentions were barred by res judicata, as the same issues had been conclusively decided in the earlier proceedings.

3. Interpretation of the quota rule and the phrase "as far as practicable":
The quota rule, established by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971, mandated a 60:40 ratio between direct recruits and promotes. The phrase "as far as practicable" was interpreted in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the State must make serious efforts to adhere to the quota rule unless it was impracticable. The MAT found no evidence that the quota rule had broken down or that the State had made serious efforts to recruit direct recruits, leading to the conclusion that promotions in excess of the quota were fortuitous and temporary.

4. Validity of promotions in excess of the prescribed quota:
The MAT determined that promotions given to promotes in excess of their quota were temporary and fortuitous. These promotions did not entitle the promotes to seniority from the date of their promotion. Instead, they would be "pushed down" in the seniority list until they could be accommodated within their prescribed quota. The MAT's findings were based on the lack of evidence that the State had deviated from the quota rule due to administrative exigencies.

5. Determination of seniority among promotes and direct recruits:
The seniority of promotes and direct recruits was to be determined by the quota rule, with promotes in excess of their quota being pushed down in the seniority list. The MAT's decision was consistent with the principles established by the Supreme Court, which required adherence to the quota rule for determining seniority.

6. Validity of the certificate issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax:
The certificate dated February 21, 1992, issued by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, stated that promotions in excess of the quota were temporary. The MAT found that this certificate did not support the appellants' contention that their promotions were regular. The certificate indicated that the promotions were temporary due to the unavailability of direct recruits, reinforcing the MAT's conclusion that these promotions were fortuitous.

7. Impact of the Government Resolution on seniority:
The Government Resolution dated June 18, 1980, determined the norms for fixing the seniority of absorbed employees from the Revenue Department in the Sales Tax Department. The resolution stated that seniority would be fixed based on the length of service in equivalent posts prior to absorption. The High Court found that the absorbed employees' seniority in the parent department could not affect their seniority in the higher cadre of STIs, leading to the quashing of the provisional seniority list.

8. Whether the judgment in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 was in a representative capacity:
The appellants contended that the judgment in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 did not bind them as it was not in a representative capacity. The MAT rejected this contention, finding that the petitioners in the transfer petition had sued in a representative capacity, and the judgment was binding on all similarly situated promotes. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, concluding that the principle of res judicata applied to the present proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the MAT's decision, dismissing the appeal on the grounds of res judicata. The seniority list issued on December 28, 1992, and finalized on October 29, 1993, was upheld, with the principle of pushing down being applied to promotions in excess of the quota. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the seniority list as on December 31, 1987, remained valid.