1998 (12) TMI 90 - SC - Customs

Whether having upheld the merits of his contention, we should now take away the benefit which the respondent has actually obtained under the orders of the Tribunal? Held that - We do not think that it would be fair to the respondent to take away the benefit which he has secured on the basis of the contentions which are accepted as justified. We, therefore, maintain the relief which has been granted to the respondent. But obviously after this lapse of time. Such relief cannot be granted to anybody else. No effect on the right of the appellants to decide in accordance with law on the number of vacancies which are required to be filled up or not filled up, while maintaining the ratio of 50 50 between promotees and direct recruits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Notification of vacancies for Class I posts in 1974.
2. Application of 50:50 quota system for direct recruits and promotees.
3. Relief granted by the Tribunal to the respondent.
4. Consideration of belated applications and interventions.

Analysis:
1. The respondent contended that in 1974, the Department of Customs and Excise wrongly intimated the number of vacancies for Class I posts, resulting in his placement in Class II service. The Tribunal directed the appellants to consider the respondent's appointment in compliance with the 50:50 quota system between direct recruits and promotees for Assistant Collector posts existing when the 1974 UPSC examination results were announced. The relief granted did not entitle the respondent to pay and allowances of the higher post he worked in until his promotion.

2. The Recruitment Rules specified a 50% quota for direct recruits and promotees, including consideration of temporary vacancies of long duration. The appellants acknowledged that temporary vacancies were not accounted for until 1990, leading to incorrect notifications. The Tribunal cited memoranda emphasizing the need to maintain the quota between direct recruits and promotees for permanent and long-term vacancies. The directive was to adjust vacancies in adherence to the 50:50 quota system for the respondent's appointment.

3. The appellants raised concerns about disturbing appointments made as far back as 1974 and the potential disruption in various service positions. The principle of delay defeating equity was highlighted, emphasizing the impracticality of revisiting selections and notifications after significant lapses of time. Despite these considerations, the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the respondent was upheld by the Supreme Court, ensuring the benefit obtained by the respondent based on justified contentions.

4. A belated intervention application from another recruit appointed in 1975 was dismissed, emphasizing that the present order only applied to the respondent. The Court clarified that notifications of vacancies for direct recruits should include both permanent and long-term temporary vacancies, as per the relevant office memoranda. The decision was specific to the respondent's case and did not extend to other applicants, with the Court dismissing further belated applications and interventions to maintain the integrity of the recruitment process and service morale.