1996 (5) TMI 414 - SC - Indian Laws

Customs Appraisers Service Class II: New Seniority List Ordered, Promotions Quashed.

GAYA BAKSH YADAV Versus UOI

The Court resolved the dispute between direct recruits and promotees in the Customs Appraisers Service Class II by directing the preparation of a new ... - Issues Involved:1. Dispute between direct recruits and promotees regarding seniority.2. Validity of the rotational system for determining seniority.3. Application of the Customs Appraisers Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961.4. Preparation of an All India combined seniority list of Appraisers.5. Quashing of promotions based on the impugned seniority list.Detailed Analysis:1. Dispute between direct recruits and promotees regarding seniority:The judgment addresses the recurring conflict between direct recruits and promotees within the Customs Appraisers Service Class II. Promotee officers challenged the seniority principles established by Circular No. A, 23011/86AD.II(A) dated May 2, 1986, issued by the Ministry of Finance, which affected their promotions to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise. They sought quashing of the 'All India Combined List of Appraisers' and a fresh seniority list based on the length of service.2. Validity of the rotational system for determining seniority:Historically, seniority was determined by a rotational system based on a quota of 50% for promotees and 50% for direct recruits. This system was upheld in the 1963 Supreme Court decision in Mervyn Continho v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, which stated that the rotational system did not violate the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court found that anomalies due to insufficient direct recruitment did not inherently violate equality principles.3. Application of the Customs Appraisers Service Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961:The 1961 Rules introduced a shift from the rotational system. Rule 4 mandated that direct recruitment should not be less than 50% of the total cadre of Appraisers, allowing for a potential increase beyond 50%. This rule indicated a preference for direct recruitment and discarded the rotational system. The Court noted that the rotational system could not function without a fixed quota, which was absent in the 1961 Rules.4. Preparation of an All India combined seniority list of Appraisers:The Government's attempts to prepare an All India list of Appraisers for promotion to Group A posts faced legal challenges. The principles laid down in various circulars, including those dated February 28, 1973, October 29, 1982, and May 22, 1986, were contested in courts. The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed the 1986 circular, directing the preparation of a new list based on continuous officiation. The judgment emphasizes the need to end litigation and establish a fair and just principle for seniority determination.5. Quashing of promotions based on the impugned seniority list:The Tribunal's decision to quash promotions made based on the May 22, 1986 circular was upheld. The Court directed that a fresh All India Combined List of Appraisers be prepared based on continuous officiation for appointments made after the 1961 Rules came into force. For appointments prior to the 1961 Rules, the rotational system from Mervyn Continho's case would apply.Conclusion:The appeals were disposed of with the directive that a new seniority list be prepared, adhering to continuous officiation for post-1961 appointments and the rotational system for pre-1961 appointments. The judgment aimed to resolve the long-standing dispute and ensure a fair seniority determination process. No costs were awarded.