Judgment

SHAH, J.: - Vasant Jayaram Karnik - hereinafter called Karnik - moved before the High Court of Gujarat a petition praying for an order quashing the "list of seniority" of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax framed by the Government of India "as of August 1, 1965, in which he was placed below twenty-nine named Officers (who will hereinafter be referred to collectively as respondents 6 to 34). He claimed that thereby he was denied the guarantee of equality of employment or employment to an office under the Union under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat upheld his contention and issued a direction requiring the Union of India to determine the seniority of Karnik and other officers in the cadre of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax in accordance with the law.

2. A public servant placed in the list of seniority in a cadre or grade where selection for promotion to the next higher grade is on the "basis of seniority-cum-merit" is entitled, on the plea that the list is contrary to the rules governing seniority, to claim relief on the footing that he is denied equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment.

3. Prior to September 1944, officers of the Income-tax Department were placed in two classes. In class I were placed Commissioners of Income- tax and Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax: in Class II were placed Income-tax Officers Grade I, Grade II and Grade III. In September 1944 the service was reorganised and the Commissioners of Income-tax Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax and Income-tax Officers Grade I and II were placed in a new Class I; and the Income-tax Officers Grade III were placed in a new Class II. On reorganisation of the service some Income-tax Officers of the former Class II service were promoted to the new Class I. Those promotions were not strictly based on seniority, but on their performance in the former Class II service.

4. This appeal primarily concerns four sets of officers: they are-

(1) B. S. Nadkarni (hereinafter called Nadkarni) who was on reorganisation of the service promoted on August 1, 1946 as Income-tax Officer Grade II Class I and was confirmed in that grade with effect from August 15, 1947. He was promoted as Income-tax Officer Grade I Class I on January 4, 1950 and was confirmed in that grade from that date.

(2) V. J. Karnik (hereinafter called Karnik) who was on June 1, 1947 promoted as Income-tax Officer Grade II Class I and was confirmed in that Class on August 1, 1948. He was promoted as Income-tax Officer Grade I Class I on January 4, 1950 and was confirmed in that Grade with effect from the same date.

(3) Respondents 6 to 34. Out of these Respondents 6 to 21 were directly recruited as Income-tax Officers. Respondents 29 to 34 were promoted as Income-tax Officers from Class II. All these officers were promoted to Class I Grade I after Nadkarni and Karnik were promoted.

(4) Hansraj Chopra, Sham, Singh and B. D. Kapoor. These Officers were promoted as Income-tax Officers Grade I Class I after Karnik, Nadkarni and respondents 6 to 34 were promoted.

5. In the "seniority list" of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade I prepared "as of August 1, 1953," Nadkarni was placed at No. 55; Karnik at No.69; respondents 6 to 21 were placed at Nos. 82, 83, 84, 89, 87, 90, 85, 88 and 93 to 100 respectively (some other officers who are not before us occupying intervening places); respondents 22 to 34 were placed at Nos. 106 to 118; and Hansraj Chopra, Sham Singh and B. D. Kapoor at Nos. 119, 120 and 121 respectively.

6. Under the rules framed by the Central Board of Revenue promotion of Income-tax Officers Grade I Class I to the grade of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax was to be made on the recommendation of a Committee called the Departmental Promotion Committee. Selection for promotion was to be made on merit, i. e. "giving greatest weightage to outstanding qualifications, record of work and ability rather than to mere seniority." The Committee after consid