Back
1978 Supreme(Del) 13
High Court Of Delhi
RANBIR CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
L.P.A. 1 of 1978
Decided On : 01/19/1978
ASHOK SENGUPTA, Bishambar Lal Khanna, K.N.Kataria, L.M.Sanghvi, MANJU MALHOTRA, MOHINDER NARAIN, S.C.Malik Sayeed Uddin
The Government has the power to redress injustice done to a civil servant, even if it means refixing the seniority of that civil servant.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SENIORITY - REFIXATION - VALIDITY - INJUSTICE - CORRECTION - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - STAY OF OPERATION OF ORDER - WRIT PETITION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Class I Officer in the Income-tax Department, challenged the order of the respondent refixing his seniority. The appellant argued that the decision of the Special Recruitment Board in 1950, which placed him in Class II, was unjust and arbitrary. He also contended that other officers who were similarly situated or less favourably situated than him were given the benefit of eligibility to appointment in Class I of the Central Services.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned order was valid and that the stay of its operation should be set aside. The court found that injustice had been done to the appellant alone, while other persons who had qualified for appointment to a Class I post in the combined competitive examination of 1945 were given that benefit either immediately or later by 1957. The court also found that the appellant's claim was based on the result of the competitive examination of 1945 and he could not, therefore, have been considered at the time the seniority list was framed.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order refixing the appellant's seniority was valid? 2. Whether the stay of operation of the impugned order should be set aside?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the impugned order was valid because: (a) Injustice had been done to the appellant alone, while other persons who had qualified for appointment to a Class I post in the combined competitive examination of 1945 were given that benefit either immediately or later by 1957. (b) The seniority rules of 1973 did not preclude a review of an error and discriminatory treatment which had taken place in 1945. (c) The facts of the case were unusual and the decision of the Government had to be taken only in respect of one candidate. 2. The court held that the stay of operation of the impugned order should be set aside because: (a) No direct injury, much less an irreparable one could be shown to be caused to any of the persons filing the writ petition by the impugned order. (b) The Government action was primarily classified into two, namely (1) as affection civil servants, and (2) as affecting others. The protection of the liberties of the individual by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is mainly invoked in cases falling in class (2 ). (c) The facts of the present case do not show that a constitutional or legal right is infringed, but rather that in exercising the power of internal administration of civil services, the Government has taken an individual decision on the particular facts of one unusual case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the stay of operation of the impugned order.
( 1 ) THIS Letters patent Appeal is directed against the order, dated 15th November, 1977, of the learned single Judge, by which the operation of the order of respondent No. 1, passed on 22-7-77 refixing the seniority of the appllant was stayed.
( 2 ) THE appellant qualified for appointment as a Class I Officer, as a result of the combined competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1945 for Central Civil Services, including the Military Accounts Department and the Income-tax Officers Class I Grade II. He was allocated to the Military Accounts Department, which stood at par with Income-tax Officers, Class I Grade II Service. In that department at that time the recruitment on the results of the said examination was being made only to the Emergency Cadre to which the appellant was appointed. Even the appointments to Income-tax Officers, Class I Service were also made on temporary basis.
( 3 ) IN June, 1950, the Special Recruitment Board interviewed Officers including the appellant, who had been appointed to the Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department and put them into three categories, namely.
(A) Those suitable for absorption in Class I of the Military Accounts Department and Indian Audit and Accounts Service;
(B) Those suitable for absorption in Class II posts in the Income-tax Department and Defence Ministry; and
(C) Those unsuitable for permanent appointment in either Class I or Class II of the Central Services.
THE appellant was placed in category (b) and made to join as Income-tax Officer Class II.
( 4 ) THE appellant since then has been contending that the decision of the Board was unjust, arbitrary and erroneous on the grounds that-
(1) Officers of category (c) were allowed to continue in Class I in the Emergency Cadre of the Military Accounts Department and were later found fit for confirmation in Class I with benefit of retrospective seniority; and
(2) Officers who were placed for absorption in the Military Accounts Department by the Board were also allowed the benefit of a redetermination of their seniority on the basis of ranks obtained in the competitive examination. Thus the errors and injustice done by the Board in 19501-51 were corrected by the Government by the year 1957 by administrative decisions in respect of candidates except the appellant.
( 5 ) ULTIMATELY, the appellant succeeded in convincing the Government that injustice had been done to him alone while the other persons similarly situated or less favourably situated than the appellant, were given the benefit of eligibility to appointment in Class I of the Central Services as a result of the combined competitive examination of 1945. After consulting the Union Public Service Commission and getting their approval, the Government passed the impugned order.
( 6 ) THE reasons for the impugned order given in the affidavit of the Government, dated 25-10-1977, are as follows:-
"ultimately, the Government of India, in consultation with the U. P. S. C. decided to refix the seniority of respondent No. 6 (the appellant here) in the Class I Service of the Income-tax Department after taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the various factors. In doing so, the Government of India have only rectified a mistake by talcing a decision which is at par with the decisions of the Military Accounts Department (now known as Defence Accounts Department) whereby some other persons who were in a similar or even worse situation as respondent No. 6 were given benefits by virtually nullifying the decisions taken in 1950 in relation to the said Officers and respondent No. 6. "
AFTER the passing of the impugned order, the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended the appellant for appointment as a Commissioner of Income-tax. Thereupon a writ petition was filed by 34 persons, who felt aggrieved by the new seniority given to the appellant for getting the impugned order quashed. They also applied for stay of the o
