JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.. (For himself and for N. L. Untwalia, P. S. Kailasam and E. S. Vendkataramiah, JJ.) : - The disputes between promotees and direct recruits in various departments of the Government seem to have no end. No sooner does one round of litigation come to a decision than is another round started by one party or the other, sometimes alleging, as in these Writ Petitions, that important facts and circumstances were not taken into consideration in the earlier proceedings either because they were suppressed or because, though cited, they were overlooked or misunderstood. A virtual review is thus asked for, opening floodgates to fresh litigation. There are few other litigative areas than disputes between members of various services inter se, where the principle that public policy requires that all litigation must have an end can apply with greater force. Public servants ought not to be driven or required to dissipate their time and energy in Court-room battles. Thereby their attention is diverted from public to private affairs and their inter se disputes affect their sense of oneness without which no institution can function effectively. The constitution of Service Tribunals by State Governments with an apex Tribunal at the Centre, which, in the generality of cases, should be the final arbiter of controversies relating to conditions of service, including the vexed question of seniority, may save the Courts from the avalanche of writ petitions and appeals in service matters. The proceedings of such Tribunals can have the merit of informality and if they will not be tied down to strict rules of evidence, they might be able to produce solutions which will satisfy many and displease only a few. There are always a few whom nothing can please.

2. The three petitioners in Writ Petition No. 66 of 1974 are all promotees. Petitioner No. 1, Kamal Kanti Dutta, was appointed as an Inspector of Income-tax on December 7, 1950 and after passing the departmental examination he was promoted as Income-tax Officer, Class II on June 21, 1954. On January 1, 1966 he was promoted as Income-tax Officer, Class I, which post he was holding on the date of the petition, February 8, 1974. Petitioners 2 and 3, Bikash Mohan Das Gupta and Sushil Ranjan Das, were promoted as Inspectors of Income-tax in April, 1955. The former was promoted as I. T. O., Class II in December, 1957 and as I. T. O., Class I, in May, 1971 while the latter was promoted as I. T. O. Class II, in August, 1973.

3. Respondents 1 to 5 to the petition are the Union of India, Secretary to the Ministry of Finance, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Union Public Service Commission respectively. Respondents 6 to 357 who were recruited directly as I. T. Os., Class I, were appointed on probation as Class I Officers after petitioner No. 1 was promoted to that cadre on January 1, 1966. Respondents 280 to 357 were appointed on probation as I. T. Os. Class I, after Petitioner No. 2 was promoted to that cadre in May, 1971.

4. Respondent No. 358, S. G. Jaisinghani, who was recruited directly as I. T. O., Class I, in 1951 was holding the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax on the date of the petition. He was posted at the relevant time as the Deputy Director of Investigation, New Delhi. Respondent 359, Mohan Chandra Joshi, who was recruited directly as I. T. O., Class I, in 1953 was also holding a similar rank and was working as Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

5. In Writ Petition No. 4146 of 1978 the petitioner, Hundraj Kanyalal Sajnani, was appointed directly on the recommendation of the Union Public Service Commission as I. T. O., Class II (Trainee) on July 1, 1947. After successfully completing the period of probation, he passed the departmental examination for I. T. Os, in July 1950. In 1959-60 he was promoted as I. T. O., Class I, and was confirmed in that cadre with effect from December 9, 1960. He was