Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab dated March 11 1964 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant - Civil Writ No. 189-D of 1962.

2. In his petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the appellant, S. G. Jaisinghani. challenged the constitutional validity of what has been described as the "seniority rule" in regard to Income Tax Service Class I Grade II along with the improper implementation of the "quota" recruitment to that Service as infringing the guarantee of Arts. 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. The original respondents to the petition were the Union of India, Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance and the Central Board of Revenue- -respondents 1 to 3. Subsequently. respondents 4 to 126 were added and those are promotees in the Income-tax Service who will be affected by the result of the petition.

3. In order to improve the Income-tax administration the Government of India, on .September 29, 1944, reconstituted and classified the existing Income-tax Services as class I and II. The re-organisational scheme provided for recruitment of Income-tax Officers, Class I Grade II Service partly by promotion and partly by direct recruitment. The re-organisational scheme was set out in Government of India, Finance Department (Central Revenues) letter dated September 29, 1944 (Ex. B). It created two classes of Income-tax Service, Class I with Grade I and Grade II and Class II Service with Grade III. Recruitment to Class I Grade II Service was to be made : (a) by direct recruitment through a competitive examination, and (b) by promotion from Class II Grade III, the ratio prescribed in paragraph 2 (d) of the letter being 80 per cent by direct recruitment and 20 per cent by promotion from Class II Grade III Service, and in case sufficient number of suitable candidates was not available for promotion surplus vacancies would be filled by direct recruitment. In Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division) letter dated January 24. 1950 (Ex. G to the writ petition), the rules of seniority were laid down. These rules laid down the principle for determination of seniority (a) as between direct recruits recruited on the result of the combined competitive examination, (b) as between promotees selected from Class II and (c) as between the direct recruits who complete their probation in a given year and the promotees in the same. year for appointment to Class I. These rules were revised on September 5, 1952 by the Government of India. Ministry of Finance, Revenue Division letter No. F. No.58 (3)-Ad. IT/50, dated September 5, 1952 The relevant rule, viz., rule 1(f) as framed in 1950 was as follows:

"The seniority of direct recruits recruited on the results of the examinations held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1944, and subsequent years shall be reckoned as follows:

(i) Direct recruits of an earlier examination shall rank above those recruited from subsequent examination..

(ii) Direct recruits of any one examination shall rank inter se in accordance with the ranks obtained by them at that examination.

(iii) The promotees who have been certified by the Commission in any calendar year shall be senior to all direct recruits who complete their probation during that year or after and are confirmed with effect from a date in that year or after.

Provided that- a person initially recruited as Class IT Income-tax Officer, but subsequently appointed to Class I on the results of a competitive examination conducted by e Federal Public Service Commission shall, if he has passed the departmental examination held before his appointment to Class I Service, be deemed to be promotee for the purpose of seniority."

The rule, as revised in 1952 was to the following effect:

"The seniority of direct recruits recruited on the results of the examinations held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1944, and subsequent years shall be reckoned