TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the new seniority rule framed for Income-tax Officers, operating from 16-1-1959 and allocating seniority by a 1:1 roster between promotees and direct recruits, violated Article 16 of the Constitution by altering the seniority position of spill-over promotees and later promotees. (ii) Whether the rule was unjust or unfair because it did not give weightage to promotees and instead substituted a roster-based seniority scheme with equal allocation of posts.
Issue (i): Whether the new seniority rule framed for Income-tax Officers, operating from 16-1-1959 and allocating seniority by a 1:1 roster between promotees and direct recruits, violated Article 16 of the Constitution by altering the seniority position of spill-over promotees and later promotees.
Analysis: The cadre was constituted from two sources, namely direct recruits and promotees, and a workable allocation of posts and inter se seniority was essential to its administration. Once the earlier quota rule and seniority rule had broken down, there was a void that had to be filled by a substitute rule operating from 16-1-1959. The promotee appointments had been made on an officiating or ad hoc basis, with seniority expressly left undecided, and many of them were irregular because no posts had been earmarked for them. The new rule did not create discrimination; it merely regularised the service by notionally allocating posts and fixing seniority between the two sources in a rational manner.
Conclusion: The new seniority rule did not violate Article 16 and was valid against the challenge of the promotees.
Issue (ii): Whether the rule was unjust or unfair because it did not give weightage to promotees and instead substituted a roster-based seniority scheme with equal allocation of posts.
Analysis: The Court accepted that Government had to choose among competing methods to restore order in the cadre after the earlier rules failed. The roster system was found to be a fair compromise because it avoided the distortions that would have resulted from simply counting dates of appointment or preserving the old weightage in seniority. The increase in promotional opportunities for promotees was balanced against the need to maintain harmony between the two recruitment streams and to prevent unfair blocking of vacancies. The Court held that the fairness of the rule had to be judged overall, not by its effect on any individual officer.
Conclusion: The rule was held to be just and fair, and the challenge to its validity on that ground failed.
Final Conclusion: The seniority list prepared under the new rule was accepted as correct, and the challenge to the rule was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a service is recruited from two sources, and the earlier quota and seniority arrangements collapse, the State may validly frame a fresh rule that notionally allocates posts and fixes inter se seniority on a rational roster basis from the date of collapse, without infringing Article 16, provided the rule is fair and not arbitrary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
