Judgment

PALEKAR, J.:- In these appeals the challenge is to the seniority list of Income-tax Officers prepared by the Central Board of Revenue in pursuance of the orders of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1038 of 1965 and Writ Petition No. 5 of 1966. The appeal referred to was filed by one Jaisinghani and the Writ Petition by one Mohan Chandra Joshi - both of whom had been directly recruited as Income-tax Officers, Class I, Grade II. The two proceedings were heard together and were disposed of by a common judgement dated February 22, 1967 and a mandamus in similar terms was issued in the two proceedings. These cases have been reported as S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India (1967) 2 SCR 703. For the purposes of the present appeals, we shall set out below the order passed in Jaisinghani s case (P. 718).

"We are accordingly of the opinion that promotees from class II, Grade III to Class I, Grade II Service in excess of the prescribed quotas for each of the years 1951 to 1956 and onwards have been illegally promoted and the appellant is entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 (1) Union of India (2) Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance and (3) Central Board of Revenue to adjust the seniority of the appellant (Jaisinghani) and other officers similarly placed like him and to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law after adjusting the recruitment for the period 1951 to 1956 and onwards in accordance with the quota rule prescribed in the letter of the Government of India No. F. 24 (2)-Admn. I.T/51 dated October 18, 1951. We, however, wish to make it clear that this order will not affect such Class II Officers who have been appointed permanently as Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax. But this order will apply to all other officers including those who have been appointed Assistant Commissioners of Income Tax provisionally pursuant to the orders of the High Court."

2. For more than a year the Government failed to prepare the seniority list as directed. So in April, 1968 the said Jaishinghani and Joshi started contempt proceedings against the Government in this court. Thereupon, Government assured this court that the list would be prepared before the court re-opens after the summer vacation and, accordingly, on 15-7-1968 Government prepared the seniority list and filed the same in court. Objections were filed by Officers affected by the list. This court, however, ruled on 6-11-1968 that contempt proceedings were inappropriate and that if any of the Officers was aggrieved by the seniority list, it was open to him to take appropriate proceedings departmentally or otherwise.

3. Thereupon two Writ Petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court. Writ Petition No. 196/70 was filed on 23-2-1970 by one Bishan Swarup Gupta - a promotee of 1962. The other one was filed by Mohan Chander Joshi being Writ Petition No. 550/70. Joshi, as already stated, was a direct recruit. In both these petitions the seniority list dated 15-7-1968 came in for attack for different reasons. The dispute was essentially between the direct recruits to Class I, Grade II of the Service and the promotees to that cadre. The two petitions came before two separate benches. Writ Petition No. 196/70 was dismissed on 29-9-1970, whereas Writ Petition No. 550/70 filed by Mohan Chander Joshi was substantially allowed. Directions were given in that Writ Petition for preparing the seniority list afresh in the light of the observations made in the judgment. Civil Appeal No. 2060 of 1971 before us is by Bishan Sarup Gupta from the Order dismissing his Writ Petition (196/70). From the Order passed in the other Writ Petition namely 550/70 the other three appeals have been filed to this court. Civil Appeal 67 of 1972 is filed by the Government. Civil Appeal No. 139/72 is filed by Mohan Chander Joshi and Civil Appeal No. 393/72 is filed by one Helms and 4 other promotees who were some of the respondents in Writ Petition No