Court orders new seniority list, validates 1960-62 promotions, adjusts excess post-1966 promotions. Appeal allowed, emphasizing modern court management.

The court directed the State Government to prepare a new seniority list based on the judgment's principles. Promotions during 1960-62 were validated, but excess promotions post-1966 must be adjusted. The appeal was allowed, modifying the High Court's judgment. The court stressed the importance of streamlining judicial processes and modernizing court management to prevent prolonged litigation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Collectors.
2. Interpretation of the 1959 Bombay Government Resolution regarding quota and rota.
3. Validity of promotions made by the Gujarat Government post-formation.
4. Application of the rule "as far as practicable."
5. The impact of the 1966 rules on seniority.
6. The constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Seniority between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Collectors:
The primary issue is the seniority inter-se between direct recruits and promotees in the cadre of Deputy Collectors in the State of Gujarat. The direct recruits claim seniority over promotees based on the 1959 Bombay Government Resolution which adopted a quota system for recruitment. The promotees argue that their seniority should be based on their length of service.

2. Interpretation of the 1959 Bombay Government Resolution regarding quota and rota:
The 1959 Resolution established a quota system for recruitment to the cadre of Deputy Collectors, stipulating a 50:50 ratio between direct recruits and promotees. The core question is whether this quota system implicitly includes a rota system, which would require alternating appointments between direct recruits and promotees for each vacancy. The court concluded that quota does not necessarily imply rota, and the two are separable. The quota system can be implemented in various ways, including annual intake as a unit for adjusting the seniority among candidates from the two sources.

3. Validity of promotions made by the Gujarat Government post-formation:
The court examined whether the Gujarat Government was bound by the administrative orders of the former Bombay State. It was held that the Gujarat Government had the plenary executive power to fill administrative posts in any manner it chose, subject to statutory regulations and constitutional limitations. The promotions made by the Gujarat Government between 1960 and 1962 were validated under the "as far as practicable" clause of the 1959 Resolution.

4. Application of the rule "as far as practicable":
The phrase "as far as practicable" in the 1959 Resolution was interpreted to mean that the State must make serious efforts to adhere to the 50:50 quota but could deviate if it was not feasible to recruit the required number of direct recruits. The court found that the Gujarat Government had made reasonable efforts to recruit direct candidates but faced practical difficulties, justifying the promotions made during 1960-62.

5. The impact of the 1966 rules on seniority:
The 1966 rules, which deleted the "as far as practicable" clause, were significant in determining the seniority. The court held that any promotions made in excess of the quota set apart for promotees after 1966 must be adjusted by pushing down the excess promotees to later years when their promotions could be regularized within their lawful quota.

6. The constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16:
The court examined whether the quota system violated the principle of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was held that the quota system, even without a rota, was reasonable and did not violate constitutional mandates. The choice of implementing the quota system, whether by year, vacancy, or other methods, was left to administrative discretion, provided it was not arbitrary or discriminatory.

Conclusion:
The court directed the State Government to prepare a new seniority list based on the principles laid down in the judgment. The promotions made during 1960-62 were validated, but any excess promotions post-1966 must be adjusted. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the High Court was substantially modified. The court emphasized the need for streamlining judicial processes and modernizing court management to avoid protracted litigation.

---