SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 677

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.
MANOHAR LAL JAT & ORS. ETC. – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC. – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO (S). 3832-3833 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO(S). 26669-26670 of 2018) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. _3834 OF 2020 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 26671/2018)
Decided on : 26-11-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Prashant Bhushan, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Chitrangda Rastravara, Monika Sharma, Advocates
For the Respondents:Irshad Ahmad, Manish Singhvi, Milind Kumar, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, Rishi Matoliya, Devvrat, Advocates

Headnote:

Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, 1975 - Rule 27 (1) and 303(a) - Posts of Tax Assistant - Seniority - Challenged - Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan granted approval for creation of 531 posts of Tax Assistants - This newly created post was augmented by further 23 posts, which were added to cadre; final tally of such newly created posts of Tax Assistants became 554 - Amendments to Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, 1975, made with effect prescribed manner of filling of posts of Tax Assistants - Departmental Selection Committee was constituted for recruitment of both categories and proceedings were initiated soon filling all for 554 posts of Tax Assistants - In accordance with rules, it was proposed to fill 80% quota of direct recruits to extent of 443 vacancies and 111 from amongst DPs - Accordingly, on and advertisement was issued for recruitment of DRs - Written examination, stipulated under rules was conducted for recruitment of DR’s; thereafter a typing test was conducted – Held, In view of Court conclusion that posts fell vacant prior to July and process of selection was completed and the Recruitment Board selected candidates on amendment that was introduced and further amendment of 1993 will have no application and it is unamended Rule 303(a), as it stood that would govern case of inter se seniority - Analysis of the provisions of para 303 indicates that where candidates are required to undergo some training after being selected through Railway Service Commission or any other recruiting authority, their seniority is determined on basis of their respective merit in examination held at end of training period - Keeping in mind that advertisements (for filling the entire cadre, in both quotas or streams of recruitment) were issued one after the other, and more importantly, that this was first selection and recruitment to a newly created cadre, delay which occurred on account of administrative exigencies (and also completion of procedure, such as verification of antecedents) seniority of promotees given on basis of their dates of appointment, is justified by Rule 27 in this case - Impugned judgment, in opinion of this court, is not erroneous; it does not call for interference - Appeals are dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. Leave granted. With consent of all the counsel for parties, the appeals were heard finally and judgment was reserved on 24th January 2020. These appeals challenge the common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court1[Sitting at its Jaipur Bench, in DB Special Appeal Writ Number 1053/2017 and DB Special Appeal Writ No. 1250/2017]. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment set aside an order made by the learned single judge of that court and held that the present Appellants (hereafter referred to as “direct recruits” or “DRs”) were not entitled to claim seniority over and above the respondents, hereafter called “departmental promotes” or “DPs”). The DRs had approached the High Court in the first instance, claiming that the seniority list, showing the DPs in earlier positions, was untenable; the single judge allowed that petition. The Division Bench has, however, allowed the appellants to question the eligibility of DPs to be recruited.

2. The relevant facts are that on 01.09.2009, the Finance Department of the Government of Rajasthan granted approval for creation of 531 posts of Tax Assistants. This newly created post was augmented by further 23 posts, which were added to the cadre; the final tally of such newly created posts of Tax Assistants became 554. Amendments to the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services General Branch Rules, 1975, made with effect from 01.12.2010, prescribed the manner of filling of posts of Tax Assistants. Schedule-I of the Amendment Rules defined the manner of filling of the posts in the following terms:

“100% by direct recruitment:

(a) 80% by the appointing authority in accordance with Schedule III

(b) 20% by selection from amongst ministerial staff of the commercial taxes department that by way of departmental examination in accordance Schedule II”

3. On 4th October 2010, a Departmental Selection Committee was constituted for recruitment of both categories and proceedings were initiated soon filling all the for 554 posts of Tax Assistants. In accordance with the rules, it was proposed to fill the 80% quota of direct recruits to the extent of 443 vacancies and 111 from amongst DPs. Accordingly, on 25.01.2011 and advertisement was issued for recruitment of DRs. The written examination, stipulated under the rules was conducted for recruitment of DR’s; thereafter a typing test was conducted on 15.05.2011. 356 candidates participated in this typing test. On 16.05.2011, provisional results were declared for the test held for DRs. Thereafter letters were apparently written by the Commissioner, Department of Commercial Taxes enclosing a list of successful candidates, to the police authorities for due verification of their character and antecedents. On 24.05.2011, the department advertised for filling up of the 20% quota for DPs. Earlier the proposal was to hold the written examination for the DPs on 24.06.2011; however, it was held earlier on 11.06.2011 and 12.06.2011. The results of these tests for the DPs were announced on 14.06.2011 and the department issued promotion letters on 23.06.2011. On 24.06.2011 the appellants were issued with letters for police verification and medical test. By this time however the DPs had already been promoted, and had taken charge of their posts. The appointment orders of the DRs were issued subsequently; on 04-07-2011.

4. On 5th June, 2013, the Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan published a seniority list in which those appointed as DPs, in the 20% quota were shown as senior to the DR/the appellants. Apparently, some of the DRs – including the appellants objected to this placement and sought for correction of the seniority list2[The third appellant, Ankur Kumar Bansal objected through a representation dated 27.06.2013, in effect stating that the placement of DPs above the DRs was unjustified and contrary to the rules.]. Another provisional/tentative seniority list was issued on 15-05-2014, in which the


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top