JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:— Respondents l 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-1. 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 turn in the seniority list prepared as per the directions given by this Court in the cases of Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India, (1975) 1 SCR 104, and Union of India Etc. v. Majji Jangamayya, (1977) 2 SCR 28. As a result, their seniority as Assistant Commissioners was adversely affected and it required correction. This grievance found favour with the Tribunal which by its impugned decision of 18-3-1987 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 principles laid down by this Court in the case of Union of 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 decision on 16-4-1974 in B. S. Gupta case (AIR 1974 SC 1618) (supra) which is also known as the IInd 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 Ist B. S. Gupta case reported in (1975) Supp. SCR 491. On the basis of this seniority list, the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) prepared a selection list in July, 1974 for promotion of Income-tax Officers, Class-1 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 outstanding , 114 very good and 7 Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes Officers good. This selection was challenged in various High Court. 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 preferred appeals to this Court. This Court allowed the appeals and upheld the selection list, vide Union of India v. Majji Gangamayya case (AIR 1977 SC 757) (supra) decided on 5-11-1976. While doing so, this Court explained the observations made in the Ist B. S. Gupta case (supra) (1975 Supp SCR 491) at page 506 thereof, which were relied upon by the respondent-Officers in that 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 Commissioner. 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 he is selected, his position will be adjusted in the cadre of the Assistant Commissioners without affecting the prom