TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 State Government was precluded from preparing and revising the seniority list in accordance with the earlier binding principles and orders; (ii) whether the writ petitions challenging the proposed provisional seniority exercise were premature and whether the directions of the learned single Judge could stand.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government was precluded from preparing and revising the seniority list in accordance with the earlier binding principles and orders.
Analysis: The earlier Division Bench directions and the Supreme Court's affirmation were understood to require preparation of seniority lists in accordance with the settled principles governing inter se seniority, while leaving no room to reopen the controversy on temporary posts. The order dated 28.07.2016 did not impose a blanket restraint on revision of seniority lists. It required the State Government to proceed in terms of the four settled principles and to await the outcome of the separate appeal only because that appeal could have affected the position on temporary posts. The later proceedings could therefore continue, but only on the basis of permanent posts and the applicable rules.
Conclusion: The State Government was not barred from preparing or revising the seniority list, but any such exercise had to remain confined to permanent posts and the settled governing principles; reopening the issue of temporary posts was impermissible.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions challenging the proposed provisional seniority exercise were premature and whether the directions of the learned single Judge could stand.
Analysis: The challenge was directed against an apprehended revision before any final provisional list had been published. The Court held that the writ petitions were brought on a speculative basis and were therefore premature. The learned single Judge, instead of leaving the State to complete the exercise in accordance with the settled principles, issued directions that effectively interfered with the preparation of the provisional list. Since the limited scope of the permissible exercise was already clear, those directions could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The writ petitions were premature and the directions issued by the learned single Judge were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the impugned common order was set aside, and the State was left free to prepare and publish provisional seniority lists only in accordance with the settled rules and the binding principles, confined to permanent posts.
Ratio Decidendi: A seniority exercise governed by prior binding adjudication may proceed in accordance with the settled principles, but a court should not interdict it on a premature challenge or permit reopening of a finally concluded controversy, especially where the disputed revision would impermissibly extend to temporary posts.
TaxTMI 
