1970 (9) TMI 33 - SC - Income Tax

Whether seniority list must be quashed? Held that - The High Court was right in observing that the proviso was intended to neutralise the effect of the minimum service rule in determining seniority in the grade of Assistant Commissioners. Rule (iii) is not intended contrary to all notions of justice and fair-play to confer upon an officer who was junior in the list of Income-tax Officers and who could not be considered for promotion on an earlier occasion a right to be placed in the list of Assistant Commissioners above an officer senior to him in the list of Income-tax Officers and who was promoted before him. If respondents Nos. 6 to 34 had been considered and selected for promotion when Nadkarni and Karnik were promoted after their officiation period was over they could not have been placed in the list of Assistant Commissioners above Nadkarni and Karnik. The circumstance that respondents Nos. 6 to 34 were not considered because they had not completed the specified minimum period of gazetted service and were considered and promoted later did not when they were promoted confer upon them the privilege of being placed in the list of Assistant Commissioners above Nadkarni and Karnik. We accordingly agree with the High Court that the seniority list must be quashed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved: Seniority determination, equality of employment, interpretation of rules, promotion criteria, and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority Determination:
The primary issue was the determination of seniority among Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax. Karnik challenged the seniority list framed by the Government of India as of August 1, 1965, claiming it violated the guarantee of equality of employment under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The High Court upheld Karnik's contention and directed the Union of India to re-determine the seniority in accordance with the law.

2. Equality of Employment:
The court recognized that a public servant placed in a seniority list where promotion is based on "seniority-cum-merit" can claim relief if the list contravenes the rules governing seniority, thereby denying equality of opportunity in employment matters.

3. Interpretation of Rules:
The relevant rules for determining seniority were outlined, with modifications made over time. Initially, seniority was based on the date of confirmation or length of continuous service in the grade. Later modifications included provisions for officers whose promotion was deferred due to not meeting the minimum length of service. The court found the Government's interpretation inconsistent with the true intent of the rules.

4. Promotion Criteria:
Promotions to the grade of Assistant Commissioner were based on merit, with a committee recommending eligible officers. The court noted that the committee's recommendations were not strictly based on seniority but included considerations of qualifications, work record, and ability. The committee had relaxed the minimum service requirement on several occasions due to a lack of eligible officers.

5. Violation of Article 16:
The court observed that the Government's interpretation of the rules led to an unjust demotion of Nadkarni and Karnik below respondents Nos. 6 to 34, which was contrary to the principles of justice and fair play. The court emphasized that the proviso to rule (iii) was intended to neutralize the effect of the minimum service rule, not to confer undue advantage to junior officers over senior ones.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the seniority list must be quashed and directed the Central Government to readjust the seniority of all officers, including Kalwant Rai, in accordance with the principles explained in the judgment. The appeal was dismissed with costs in favor of Karnik and Nadkarni.