TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Success: Seniority Lists Quashed, New Promotion Panel Ordered</h1> <h3>A. Janardhana Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and accepting the appellant's writ petition. The seniority list of June 14, 1974, was ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the revised seniority list of June 14, 1974.2. Legality of the promotion panel dated January 13, 1975.3. Application of the 1963 Seniority List.4. Interpretation and application of the 1949, 1953, 1961, and 1962 Rules.5. Impact of the Bachan Singh case on the current case.6. Power of the Government to relax recruitment rules.7. Determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees.8. Validity of retrospective application of new seniority principles.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Revised Seniority List of June 14, 1974:The appellant challenged the revised seniority list dated June 14, 1974, which omitted his name due to adherence to a quota rule. The seniority list was based on criteria derived from the Bachan Singh case, which the appellant argued was misinterpreted. The court found that the criteria used in the 1974 seniority list were invalid and contrary to the relevant rules. The seniority list was quashed as it was based on the incorrect assumption of an inviolable quota rule and failed to consider the relaxation of the rules during the emergency period.2. Legality of the Promotion Panel dated January 13, 1975:The promotion panel dated January 13, 1975, was drawn up based on the impugned 1974 seniority list. Since the 1974 seniority list was quashed, the promotion panel was also invalidated. The court ordered a fresh panel for promotion to be drawn up consistent with the 1963 and 1967 seniority lists.3. Application of the 1963 Seniority List:The appellant sought the implementation of the 1963 Seniority List, which was based on the principle of continuous officiation. The court upheld the validity of the 1963 and 1967 seniority lists, stating that they were drawn up according to the rules then in force and satisfied the test of Article 16 of the Constitution.4. Interpretation and Application of the 1949, 1953, 1961, and 1962 Rules:The court examined the evolution of the relevant rules from 1949 to 1969. It noted that the 1949 Rules initially prescribed a quota of 9:1 between direct recruits and promotees, which was later modified. The court found that the Government had the power to relax the rules during the emergency period, and the recruitment made in relaxation of the quota rule was valid.5. Impact of the Bachan Singh Case on the Current Case:The Bachan Singh case established that the 1949 Rules acquired statutory character in 1969 and that the Government had the power to relax the rules during the emergency period. The court in the current case followed the binding decision in Bachan Singh, concluding that the recruitment made during the emergency period in relaxation of the rules was valid.6. Power of the Government to Relax Recruitment Rules:The court affirmed that the Government had the power to relax the recruitment rules, including the quota rule, during the emergency period. This power was exercised to meet the exigencies of service, and the recruitment made in relaxation of the rules was valid.7. Determination of Inter Se Seniority Between Direct Recruits and Promotees:The court found that the rule of seniority enunciated in para 3(iii) of Appendix V of the 1949 Rules became ineffective once the quota rule was relaxed. The seniority lists of 1963 and 1967, based on continuous officiation, were held to be valid. The court emphasized that a direct recruit who enters service after a promotee should not be allowed to score a march over the promotee, as it would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.8. Validity of Retrospective Application of New Seniority Principles:The court held that the retrospective application of the new seniority principles devised in 1974, which affected the seniority lists validly drawn up in 1963 and 1967, was unjust and invalid. The 1974 seniority list was quashed, and the seniority lists of 1963 and 1967 were declared to hold the field until 1969.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the writ petition filed by the appellant was accepted. The seniority list dated June 14, 1974, was quashed, and the seniority lists of 1963 and 1967 were declared valid. The promotion panel dated January 13, 1975, was also quashed, and a fresh panel for promotion was ordered to be drawn up based on the 1963 and 1967 seniority lists.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
