Central Board of Direct Taxes and Anr. v. Dr. O.N. Tripathi and Ors.
SAWAN.T, J. Respondents 1 and 2 in this Appeal Dr. Tripathi
and Shri Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) were
recruited directly to the posts of Income Tax Officers, Class-!. They
had made a grievance before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad that they were not appointed to the next higher post of
Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax according to their tum in the F
seniority list prepared as per the directions given by this Court in the
cases of Bishan Sarup Gupta etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., etc.
etc., [1975] 1 SCR 104 and Union of India etc. v. Majji Jangamayya
etc., (J977] 2 SCR 28. As a result, th~ir seniority as Assistant Comm1s-.
sioners was adversely affected and it required correction. This grie·
vance found favour with the Tribunal which by its impugned decision G
of 183.1987 quashed the seniority list of Assistant Commissioners and
Commissioners of Income Tax and directed the appellants herein,
namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Union of India to
redetermine their seniority in the list of Asstt. Commissioners, vis-a-
vis, the seniority of respondents 3 to 20 who are also direct recruits,
and other concerned officers, in the light of the directions and princi- H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
pies laid down by this Court in the case of Union a/India etc. v. Majji
Jangamayya etc. (supra).
2. The dispute with regard to the seniority between the direct
recruits and the promotees in the Income Tax Department was set at
rest by a Constitution Bench of this Court when it delivered its deci
sion on 16.4.1974 in B.S. Gupta case (supra) which is also known as
the Ilnd B.S. Gupta case. By that decision, this Court accepted as
correct the seniority list of Income Tax Officers which was filed before
it on February 15, 1973 having been prepared in accordance with the
directions given in the judgment dated August 16, 1972 in, what is
known as the /st B.S. Gupta case reported in 1975 Supp. SCR 491. On
the basis of this seniority list, the Departmental Promotion Commit
tee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) prepared a selection list
in July, 1974 for promotion of Income Tax Officers, C(ass-I to the
posts of Assistant Commissioners. There were 112 vacancies and the
Government sent to the Committee 336 names in order of seniority for
consideration of the field of choice. The Committee followed the
instructions given for the purpose in the Government Memorandum of
1957 and found 276 Officers fit for the area of choice, assessed the
merits of 145 persons in order of seniority, found one officer outstand
ing, 114 very good and 7 Scheduled Caste-Scheduled Tribes Officers
good. This selection was challenged in various High Courts. Two of
the High Courts allowed the petitions in favour of the challenging'
petitioners and the other High Courts gave interim orders staying the
operation of the selection list. At that stage, the Union of India prefer
red appeals to this Court. This Court allowed the appeals and upheld
the selection list, vide Union of India etc. v. Majji Jangamayya case
(supra) decided on 5.11.1976. While doing so, this Court explained the
observations made in the /st B.S. Gupta case (supra) at page 506
thereof, which were relied upon by the respondent-Officers in thai
case. These observations were as follows:
"After the fresh seniority list is made in accordance
with the above directions, it will be open to any direct
recruit or promotee to point out to the department that in
the selections made to the post of Assistant Commissioner
from 1962 onwards, he, being otherwise eligible, was
entitled on account of the new seniority given to him, to be
considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Commis
sioner. The department may have to consider his case for
promotion on his record as on the date when he ought to
have been considered for selection but not so considered. If
.,.
C.B.D.T v. 0.N. TRIPATHI [SAWANT, J.] 339
he is selected, his position will be adjusted in the cadre of A
the Assistant Commissioners without affecting the pro
motee Assistant Commissioners who had been confirmed
prior to 22.2.1967 the date on which the Jaisinghani's case
was disposed of by this Court."
(Emphasis supplied)
While explaining these observations, this Court observed as
follows:
"The observations ..... are that if as a result of the
fresh seniority list it is found that any officer was eligible for
promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner on
account of his place in the new seniority list, the depart- C
ment might have to consider his case for promotion on his
record as on the date when he ought to have been considered
·and if he would be selected his position will be adjusted in
the seniority list of Assistant Commissioners. The object is
tb see that the position of such a person is not affected in D
tile seniority list of Assistant Commissioners because he is
actually promoted later pursuant to the new seniority list,
although according to the new seniority list itself he should
have been promoted earlier. The observations do not mean
that although the Committee can meet for the selection of
officers for promotion to the post of Assistant Commis- E
sioner only after the seniority list is approved by this Court,
the seleciion would be deemed to be made at the time when
a vacancy in the post of Assistant Commissioner occurred
and the eligibility of officers for selection will be deter•
mined by such deemed date of selection. No employee has
any right to have a vacancy in the higher post filled as soon F
as the vacancy occurs. Government has the right to keep
the vacancy unfilled as long as it chooses. In the present
case, such a position does not arise because of the con
troversy between two groups of officers for these years.
The seniority list which. is the basis for the field of choice
{or promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner was G
apprpved by this Court on 16 April, 1974. Promotions to
the post of Assistant Commissioners are on the basis of the
sel_ection list prepared by the Committee and are to be
made prospectively and not retrospectively."
(Emphasis ours)
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
The contention raised by the respondents Dr. Tripathi & Shri
Sinha in the present appeal and which as stated above, is accepted by
the Tribunal, was that ih view of the said observations in /st B.S.
Gupta case (supra) as explained in Majji Jangamayya case (supra)
while selecting the Income Tax Officers to the post of Assistant Com
missioners, the Committee was required to consider the cases of the
Income Tax Officer falling within the zone, with reference to their
records on the date the Committee met for selection. They were not to
be selected with reference to their records relevant to the year for
which. their selection was to be made. Since the Committee followed
the latter course, it had, according to the petitioners, violated the
directions of this Court given in. the case of /st B.S. Gupta (supra) as
explained in the case of Majji Jangamayya (supra). Unfortunately, the
Tribunal 'ten for this contention little realising that it was the first
course canvassed by the contesting respondents and not the latter
which would have been contrary to the directions of this Court in both
the /st s:s. Gupta case (supra) as well as Majji Jangamayya case
(supra). A.sis abundantly clear from the relevant observations repro
duced abo.ve, what was desired by this Court in both. these cases was
that if according to the new seniority list there were cases of officers
who were entitled to be considered for promotion much before they
were considered on the basis of the old seniority list, the Committee
should Look into such cases, and should .adjust the promotions given
right from the year 1962 onwards by considering the ·cases of such
unjustly superseded officers. Hence the Committee was required to
consider the vacancies in the posts of Asst!. Commissioners year-wise
from 1962 onwards, and if the superseded officers were found fit for
such promotion, they were to be given seniority as Asstt. Commis
sioners from the year in which they would have been promoted. It goes
without saying that while considering the promotions in the earlier
years, the Committee had to consider the record of the officers rele
vant to those years. The Committee could not have taken into consi
deration the record of future years for promotion in the earlier years.
This is also the import of the observations of this Court emphasised by
us above .. The Committee did exactly that as is clear from what is
stated in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the counter filed on behalf of the
appellants in the proceedings before the Tribunal. There it is pointed
out specifically with reference to the contesting respondents Dr.
Tripathi and Shri Sinha that the Committee which met from 1977 to
1979 to adjust the promotions as directed by this Court, considered in
1978 the case of Dr. Tripathi with respect to his claim which arose in
September 1968, February 1969 and September 1969. He was not
selected to the post for the vacancies in September 1968 and February
C.B.D.T v. 0.N. TRIPATll! ISAWANT, J.I 341
1969 on the hasis of comparative merit. However, he was selected for
one of the vacancies in September 1969 and was given deemed promo
tion with reference to that date .. So also the case of respondent Shri
Sinha was considered for the vacancies in September 1968, February
1969 and September 1969. He was not selected for the vacancies in
September 1968 and February 1969, but was selected for one of the
vacancies in September 1969. He was given the deemed date of promo- · B
ti on from that date. There is no dispute that the seniority of both the
respondents as Asstt. Commissioners has been fixed with reference to
the said dates of their deemed promotion.
3. Mr. Salve, the leaned counsel appearing for both the contest
ing respondents, however, urged two contentions. His first and the
main contention was that the claims of the said respondents should
have been considered on the basis of their records either on the date
the new seniority list was prepared, i.e., February 2, 1973 (as
approved in the Ilnd Gupta case decided on April 16, 1974) or on the
date the Committee met in 1978 to consider their claims for the promo
tional posts .. He contended that this was the direction given by this
Court in the /st Gupta case (supra) and in Majji Jangamayya case
(supra). We have already quoted above the directions given in both
the ·said cases. It will be obvious from the said directions that the
course suggested by Shri Salve, if adopted by the Committee, would
have been in clear violation of the said directions. On the other hand,
the Committee had strictly and correctly abided by the said directions.
4. The second contention urged by Shri Salve was that the selec
tion was not made according to the instructions given in the Govern
ment Memorandum of ,1957. According to him, it is the merit-cum
seniority and not seniority-cum-merit formula which should have been
followed while making the promotions. We have no record before us to
find out what exactly were the comparative merits of the contesting
respondents as against the other candidates. The respondents in their
counter-affidavit have stated in so many words that the comparative
merits of the respondents were considered, vis-a-vis the other candi
dates for each of the occasions. They were not selected for the vacan
cies of two earlier occasions and\vere selected on the third occasion on
the basis of the comparative merits. We also cannot overlook the fact
that before the Tribunal the contesting respodents neither advanced
any such contention nor requested' for the production of the records.
In fact, theli case before the Tribunal did not centre rounds this point
at all. Evervso, since the records were brought by the appellants in this
Court, ,Ai~}iad asked Sfl~ji;Salve to look into them and inform us
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
whether his grievance that the merits of his clients were not given due
weight by the Committee had any substance. No such material was
furnished to us.
5. The result is, the appeal is allowed and the impugned decision
of the Tribunai 'is set aside. In the circumstances, there will be no order
as to costs.
6. The interim application and the contempt petitions respec·
tively were filed by the contesting respondents for seeking directions
to the appellants to appoint them provisionally as Chief Commissio·
ners of Income Tax and for taking action for the alleged breach of the
C orders of this Court for not considering their claims to the said posts
according to seniority. In the view we have taken, they have to be
dismissed. We also understand from the appellants that the contesting
respondents have since been appointed as Chief Commissioners
according to their seniority as determined by the department and
approved by us as above. We have been told by appellants' counsel
D that the reversal of the Tribunal's decision no longer affects the prom·
otion granted to them.
N.P.V. Appeal allowed .
. I