{"id":135909,"date":"1972-08-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-08-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972"},"modified":"2018-01-23T16:50:05","modified_gmt":"2018-01-23T11:20:05","slug":"bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","title":{"rendered":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2627, \t\t 1975 SCR 491<\/div>\n
Author: D Palekar<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Ray, A.N., Dua, I.D., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBISHAN SARUP GUPTA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND ORS(With connected civil appeals)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/08\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nBENCH:\nPALEKAR, D.G.\nSIKRI, S.M. (CJ)\nRAY, A.N.\nDUA, I.D.\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2627\t\t  1975 SCR  491\n 1973 SCC  (3)\t 1\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1975 SC 483\t (20,24,26)\n R\t    1977 SC 251\t (33,36,38)\n E\t    1977 SC 757\t (3,17,21,38,39,40,57,58)\n R\t    1977 SC2051\t (33)\n RF\t    1980 SC1561\t (27)\n RF\t    1980 SC2056\t (73)\n D\t    1983 SC 769\t (22,29,31,38)\n R\t    1984 SC1291\t (7,13,21,22,32)\n D\t    1984 SC1595\t (66)\n F\t    1985 SC1019\t (18)\n E&D\t    1985 SC1558\t (26,28)\n RF\t    1985 SC1605\t (16)\n RF\t    1987 SC2359\t (9)\n R\t    1990 SC1106\t (26,27,28,30)\n D\t    1990 SC1607\t (26)\n C&F\t    1991 SC 212\t (2,3)\n D\t    1992 SC2074\t (7)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-Tax  Officers Class I, Grade II\tService\t Recruitment\nRules  of 1945--Rule 4 of the Rules of Promotion for  Direct\nrecruits--When a statutory duty is cast on the Government to\ndetermine  the method to be employed for the recruitment  of\ncandidates  to vacancies in service and once the  Government\nhas  fixed  the\t  quota Rules of 2 : 1,\t the  promotees\t are\nentitled till January 16th, 1959 to 333 1\/3 per cent of\t the\nvacancies  both\t in Permanent and temporary  posts,  in\t any\nparticular  year irrespective of the fact whether there\t was\nany, direct recruitment by competitive\texamination in\tthat\nyear.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe scope of Rule l(f) (iii) and (iv) of the seniority Rules\nof  the\t Income-Tax  Officers (Class  I\t Grade\t11)  service\nRecruitment Rules and also Rule 4 of the Rules of  Promotion\nof  the Board of Revenue Office Procedure Manual came to  be\nconsidered  in \"Jaisinghani's case\" [1967] (2) SCR  703\t and\nthe  Supreme Court while rejecting the contention  that\t the\nrule  was  violative of Art 14 and 16  of  the\tConstitution\nissued\ta manzdamus to prepare a fresh seniority rule  based\non the \"quota rule\" of 2 : 1 between the direct recruits and\nthe \"Promotees\" for the year 1952-56.  The Government under-\nstood  the  mandamuss as also for the years' upto  1967\t and\nprepared  a  fresh seniority list dated\t 15-7-1968  and\t the\nappellants challenged the same as violative of the  mandamus\nissued by the Court\nHELD : It was for the Government under rule 4 of the Income-\nTax Officers Class 1, Grade 11 Service Recruitment Rules  to\ndetermine  the\tmethod\tor methods to be  employed  for\t the\npurposes of filling any particular vacancies and the  number\nof vacancies and the number of candidates to be recruited by\neach  method.  It is wrong to assume that this\tCourt  would\ntake upon itself to do what the Government is required to do\nunder rule 4. The mandamus was really confined to the period\nbetween 1951-1956. [495-H]\nRule  4\t of  the  Income-Tax  Class  1,\t Grade\t11   Service\nRecruitment  Rules also refers to recruitment of  candidates\nto  vacancies  in  the\tservice.   The\tvacancies  for\t any\nparticular year being ascertained not more than 1\/3rd of the\nsame were to go to the promotees and the rest to the  direct\nrecruits.   The ratio was not made dependent on whether\t any\ndirect recruit was appointed in any particular year or\tnot.\nThe promotees were entitled to 1\/3rd of the vacancies in any\nparticular year whether or not there was direct\t recruitment\nbut competitive examination in that year. [499G-H]\nIt  is true that the quota rule refers to vacancies but\t the\nvacancies are those vacancies which the Government wants  to\nfill.\tIt is the prerogative of the  Government,  reflected\nfurther in Rule 4, whether any vacancy may be filled tit all\nor not.\t Therefore, when the quota rule refers to  vacancies\nit is implicit in the rule that the vacancies are vacancies,\nwhich  the  Government\twant to fill, whatever\tmay  be\t the\nactual number of vacancies. [50D-F]\nThere  is no sufficient warrant for the contention that\t the\nvacancies  referred to in the quota rule are vacancies\tonly\nin the permanent cadre. [502D-E]\nS.   G.\t Jaisinghani V. Union of India & Ors [1967] (2)\t SCR\n703, nature of mandamus clarified.\n10 SC\/75-33\n492\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2060(N) of
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal by certificate from the Judgment and Order dated\t the
\n22nd  September 1970 of the Delhi High Court in\t Civil\tWrit
\nNo.  196 of 1970 and Civil Appeal Nos. 67, 1739 and  393  of
\n1972.\n<\/p>\n
For  the  Appellants : Yogeshwar Prasad & Mrs. S.  Bagga  in
\nC.A. 2060\/71 and C.A. 393\/72, S. P. Nayar in C.A. 67\/72\t and
\nJ. C. Tailwar & Bishamber Lal in C.A. 139\/72.
\nFor  the  Respondents : S. P. Nayar in\tC.A.  2060\/71,\tC.A.
\n139\/72 and C.A. 393\/72, J. C. Talwar & Bishamber Lal in C.A.
\n2060\/71 and C.A. 67\/72, Yogeshwar Prasad & Mrs.’S. Bagga  in
\nC.A.  67\/72 and 139\/72 and B-.\tR. Agarwala in C.A. 67\/72  &
\nC.A. 393\/72.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nPALEKAR,  J.-In\t these\tappeals\t the  challenge\t is  to\t the
\nseniority  list\t of  Income-tax\t Officers  prepared  by\t the
\nCentral Board of Revenue in pursuance of the orders of\tthis
\nCourt in Civil Appeal No. 1038 pursuance Writ Petition No. 5
\nof   1966.   The  appeal  referred  to\twas  filed  by\t one
\nJaisinghani  and  the  Writ Petition by\t one  Mohan  Chandra
\nJoshi,\tboth of whom had been directly recruited as  Income-
\ntax  Officers, Class 1, Grade II.  The two proceedings\twere
\nheard  together\t and were disposed of by a  common  judgment
\ndated February 22, 1967 and a mandamus in similar terms\t was
\nissued\tin  the\t two proceedings.   These  cases  have\tbeen
\nreported as S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors.(1).
\nFor  the purposes of the present appeals, we shall  set\t out
\nbelow the order passed in Jaisinghani’s case (p. 718).\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  are\taccordingly  of\t the  opinion\tthat
\n\t      promotes\tfrom Class 11, Grade- III to  Class-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1,   Grade  11  Service  in  excess   of\t the
\n\t      prescribed  quotas for each of the years\t1951
\n\t      to  1956\tand  onwards  have  been   illegally
\n\t      promoted\tand the appellant is entitled  to  a
\n\t      writ  in\tthe.nature  of\tmandamus  commanding
\n\t      respondents  1  to 3 (1) Union of\t India,\t (2)
\n\t      Secretary\t to  the  Govt.\t of  India  in\t the
\n\t\t\t    Ministry  of Finance and (3) Central
\nBoard  of
\n\t      Revenue\tto  adjust  the\t seniority  of\t the
\n\t      appellant\t (Jaisinghani)\tand  other  officers
\n\t      similarly\t placed\t like him and to  prepare  a
\n\t      fresh  seniority list in accordance  with\t law
\n\t      after adjusting the recruitment for the period
\n\t      1951  to 1956 and onwards in  accordance\twith
\n\t      the quota rule prescribed in the letter of the
\n\t      Government of India No. F. 24(2)-Admn.  I.T\/51
\n\t      dated October 18, 1951.  We, however, wish  to
\n\t      make it clear that this order will not  affect
\n\t      such Class II Officers who have been appointed
\n\t      permanently  as  Assistant  Commissioners\t  of
\n\t      Income Tax.  But this order will apply to\t all
\n\t      other  officers including those who have\tbeen
\n\t      appointed\t Assistant Commissioners  of  Income
\n\t      Tax  provisionally pursuant to the  orders  of
\n\t      the High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   [1967] 2 S.C.R. 703.\n<\/p>\n
\t      493<\/span><\/p>\n
For  more than a year the Government failed to\tprepare\t the
\nseniority  list\t as directed.  So in April,  1968  the\tsaid
\nJaisinghani  and Joshi ,started contempt proceeding  against
\nthe Government in this Court.  Thereupon, Government assured
\nthis Court that the list would be prepared before the  Court
\nreopens after the summer vacation and. accordingly, on 15-7-
\n1968  Government prepared the seniority list Inc) filed\t the
\nsame  in Court.\t Objections were filed by Officers  affected
\nby  the list.  This Court, however, ruled on 6-11-1968\tthat
\ncontempt  proceedings were inappropriate and that if any  of
\nthe  Officers  was aggrieved by the seniority list,  it\t was
\nopen  to him to take appropriate proceedings  departmentally
\nor otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
Thereupon  two Writ Petitions were filed in the\t Delhi\tHigh
\nCourt.\t Writ Petition No. 196\/70 was filed on 23-2-1970  by
\none Bishan Swarup Gupta promotee of 1962.  The other one was
\nfiled by Mohan Chander Joshi being Writ Petition No. 550\/70.
\nJoshi,\tas  already stated, was a direct recruit.   In\tboth
\nthese  petitions the seniority list dated 15-7-1968 came  in
\nfor   attack   for  different  reasons.\t The   dispute\t was
\nessentially between the direct recruits to Class 1, Grade 11
\nof  the\t Service and the promotees to that cadre.   The\t two
\npetitions  came before two separate benches.  Writ  Petition
\nNo. 196\/70 was dismissed on 29-9-1970, whereas Writ Petition
\nNo.  550\/70 filed by Mohan Chander Joshi  was  substantially
\nallowed.   Directions were given in that Writ  Petition\t for
\npreparing  the\tseniority list afresh in the  light  of\t the
\nobservations made in the judgment.  Civil Appeal No. 2060 of
\n1971  before  us  is by Bishan Sarup Gupta  from  the  Order
\ndismissing  his\t Writ  Petition (196\/70).   From  the  Order
\npassed\tin the other Writ Petition namely 550\/70  the  other
\nthree  appeals have been filed to this Court.  Civil  Appeal
\n67 of 1972 is filed by the Govt.  Civil Appeal No. 139\/72 is
\nfiled by Mohan Chander Joshi and Civil Appeal No. 393\/72  is
\nfiled  by one Helms aid 4 other promotees who where some  of
\nthe respondents in Writ Petition No. 550\/70.
\nIn all these appeals the only question for consideration was
\nwhether the seniority list prepared on 15-7-1968 was correct
\nand  in accordance with the mandamus issued as\tabove.\t All
\nthese  appeals were, therefore, heard together and  will  be
\ndisposed of by this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
As we are principally concerned with the mandamus issued  in
\nJaisinghani’s case, we have to understand the precise nature
\nand  scope of the mandamus.  The mandamus was issued on\t the
\nfacts  brought to the notice of this Court at the time,\t and
\nit  is clear that the directions given in the mandamus\tmust
\nbe  construed against the background of those facts.  It  is
\nnot necessary to recount all the facts here because they are
\nall  there in the official report-Jaisinghani vs.  Union  of
\nIndia  [1967]  (2)  S.C.R. 703.\t  Jaisinghani  was  directly
\nrecruited to class I. Grade 11 of the Income Tax Service  in
\n1951 after he had passed the competitive examination held by
\nthe  Union  Public Service Commission in  1950.\t  The  other
\npetitioner  Joshi similarly had joined that service in\t1953
\nafter being selected in the competitive examination in 1952.
\nIn  1962 and thereafter some promotions were made from\tthis
\nclass  to the post of the Assistant Commissioner.  The\tcase
\nof  Jaisinghani and Joshi was that having joined service  in
\n1951 and
\n494<\/span>
\n1953  respectively, they were entitled to be considered\t for
\nbeing\tselected  to  the  higher  post\t of  the   Assistant
\nCommissioner, but they were not so considered because in the
\nseniority list then prepared they were shown much below some
\nof  the promote officers who had been promoted to the  cadre
\nof  Class  1, Grade II service long  after  Jaisinghani\t and
\nJoshi had joined the service.  This was done on the basis of
\na seniority rule, also called the Weightage rule, the effect
\nof which was to give seniority to a promote of any year\t not
\nonly over the direct recruits who joined the service in that
\nyear  but  also over those direct recruits  who\t joined\t the
\nservice in the previous two years.  For example, if a direct
\nrecruit was selected in the competitive examination of\t1950
\nand joined the service in 1951 he will be not only junior to
\nthe  promote  of 1951 but also to the promote  of  1952\t and
\n1953.\tIt  was contended that such a rule  was\t unjust\t and
\nviolative of the principle of equality embodied in  Articles
\n14 and 16 of the Constitution.\tIn the second place, it\t was
\ncontended,  even  assuming that the seniority rule  was\t not
\nviolative  of  any constitutional guarantee,  the  seniority
\nlist  which  had been actually prepared in 1962 and  on\t the
\nbasis\tof  which  promotion  to  the  post   of   Assistant
\nCommissioner  had been made was not strictly  in  accordance
\nwith  the quota rule and all those promoters who were  shown
\nas  seniors,  were not really entitled to that rank  and  be
\nconsidered for promotion in preference to the petitioners.
\nThis Court did not accept the first contention.\t This  Court
\nheld  that  the rule of seniority was  just  and  reasonable
\nhaving\tregard to the fact that only a small  percentage  of
\nofficers was promoted to the grade and those promotions were
\nmade  out  of  experienced Income-tax officers\tby  a  rigid
\nselection made by the Department Promotional Committee.\t  At
\nthe time of the promotion from Class 11, Grade III to  Class
\n1,  Grade 11, the promoters had to put in at least  5  years\n<\/p>\n
-of  service in class 11, Grade III of which two years\twere
\nfor  probation and 3 years of actual  income-tax  assessment
\nwork.\tOn the other hand, the direct recruit after  joining
\nthe service in any particular year had to undergo  probation
\nfor two years in which they did not do any actual assessment
\nwork.\tOnly  after  two  years\t of  probation,\t were\tthey
\nentrusted with assessment work.\t This Court pointed out\t (p.\n<\/p>\n
712)  “The  net effect of rule\t1(f)(iii)  (seniority  rule)
\ntherefore  is that three years of outstanding work in  Class
\n11  is equated to two years of probation in Class I  service
\nand  on\t consideration\tof this aspect\tof  the\t matter\t the
\npromote is given seniority over a direct recruit  completing
\nthe period of probation in the same year.” Since at the time
\nof  entering Class 1, Grade 11 service the  recruitment\t was
\nfrom  two  different sources, there was no  question  of  an
\ninfringement  of  Articles  14\tor  16(1);  and\t since\t the
\npromoters  had experience of assessment work at the time  of
\nthe  promotion\tand the direct recruits had none  when\tthey
\ncompleted  their two years probation. it could not  be\tsaid
\nthat  the rule giving seniority to the promotees  over\tsuch
\ndirect\t recruits  was\tinvalid.   So  far  as\tthe   second
\ncontention  was concerned this Court tried to ascertain,  if
\nin  any particular year between 1951 to 1956 there bad\tbeen
\npromotions from class 11 service in excess of the quota laid
\ndown in the rule prescribed in
\n495<\/span>
\nGovernment  letter  dated October 18, 1951.  The  quota\t was
\nrelatable  to permanent vacancies but the Secretary  of\t the
\nFinance\t Department Mr. Dutt was not able to enlighten\tthis
\nCourt  as  to the number ,of such vacancies in\tthese  years
\nthough\the was able to give the figures of  direct  recruits
\nand  promotees appointed in those several years.   In  other
\nwords, there was no sufficient material before the Court  to
\ndecide whether or not the appointments of promotees were  or
\nwere  not  in  excess of the quota of  33-1\/3  per  cent  of
\npermanent vacancies available to promotees.  Accordingly the
\nmandamus was issued in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n
The Government understood the mandamus as covering the whole
\nperiod from 1951 to 1967 the latter being the year in  which
\nthe  mandamus was issued.  The seniority list, which is\t now
\nchallenged,  covers  direct recruits and promotees  for\t the
\nwhole  of this period.\tGovernment felt that the  expression
\nused  in  the mandamus “recruitment for the period  1951  to
\n1956 and onwards” contained a direction for the\t preparation
\nof  the seniority list not only for the years 1951  to\t1956
\nbut also for the succeeding years upto 1967.  We are clearly
\nof the view that this Court could not possibly have in\tmind
\na  seniority list which took in promotees after\t 1956.\t The
\n,quota\trule had been specifically noticed by this Court  as
\nbeing for the duration of 5 years in the first instance i.e.
\nto say from 1951 to 1956.  The two direct recruits who\twere
\nbefore\tthe Court namely Jaisinghani and Joshi\thad  entered
\nthe  service  during this period.  Jaisingbani\thad  entered
\nservice\t in  1951  and Joshi had joined\t set-vice  in  1953.
\nTheir complaint was that in 1962 and later they had not been
\nconsidered  for\t promotion  to the  post  of  the  Assistant
\nCommissioner though they thought they were eligible.   Their
\ncomplaint  further was that some of the promotees who  could
\nnot  have  found a place in those years had  found  a  place
\nabove  them  and hence their chances  of  consideration\t for
\nhigher\tpromotion  had been postponed.\t Therefore,  it\t was
\nsufficient for the purpose of giving relief to\tJaisinghani,
\nJoshi and other Officers similarly placed to consider  which
\nof the promotees during the period of 1951 to 1956 should be
\nrelatively  regarded as being senior to them and  which\t who
\ncould  not be so regarded, That was also the reason  why  in
\nthe  petitions before this Court only the promotees for\t the
\nyears  1951 to 1956 had been specifically made parties.\t  It
\nwas  not,  therefore, necessary for the\t purpose  of  giving
\nrelief\tto Jaisinghani and Joshi and other  direct  recruits
\nsimilarly  placed to consider the position of the  promotees
\nof 1957 and later years vis-a-vis Jaisinghani and Joshi.  It
\ncannot\tbe assumed that this Court made an Order which\twent
\nfar beyond the requirements of the case for the purposes  of
\ngiving relief to the petitioners-Jaisinghani and Joshi.\t  On
\na  comparison of the relative position of these\t petitioners
\nwith the validly promoted officers for those years it  would
\nhave  been possible to say at once whether in the year\t1962
\nand the succeeding years when promotions opened to the\tpost
\nof the Assistant Commissioners, promotees outside the  quota
\nhad been considered for promotion ignoring the seniority  of
\nthe  petitioners.  Secondly having specifically\t noted\tthat
\nthe  quota rule of 662\/, per cent and 331\/3 per cent was  to
\nbe  in\toperation only for 5 years, in the  first  instance,
\nthat is to say upto 1956, it will be wrong to say that\tthis
\nCourt could or would perpetuate the quota
\n496<\/span>
\nfor  the years after 1956.  It was for the Government  under
\nrule  4\t of  the Income-tax Officers,  Class  I,,  Grade  11
\nService Recruitment Rules to determine the method or methods
\nto  be employed for the purposes of filling  any  particular
\nvacancies  and the number of candidates to be  recruited  by
\neach  method.  It is wrong to assume that this\tCourt  would
\ntake upon itself to do what the Government is required to do
\nunder  rule  4.\t In our view, therefore,  the  mandamus\t was
\nreally confined to the period between 1951-1956.  It is true
\nthat  the  mandamuss  has  also\t used  the  expression\t“and
\nonwards”  but the expression does not mean for all years  to
\ncome.\tThis Court had contemplated the possibility of\tsome
\nexcess\tpromotions being made in the years 1951 to  1956  on
\nthe  basis  of\tfigures\t submitted to  it.   If\t there\twere
\npromotions  in\tany  year in excess,  of  the  quota,  those
\npromotions  were merely invalid for that year but they\twere
\nnot  invalid  for all time.  They could\t be  regularised  by
\nbeing  absorbed in the quota for the later years.   That  is
\nthe reason why this Court advisedly used the expression “and
\nonwards”  just to enable the Government to push down  excess
\npromotions  to later years so that these promotions  can  be
\nabsorbed in the lawful quota for those years.
\nIn our opinion, therefore, the true scope of the mandamus is
\nlimited\t to  the promotions during the period from  1951  to
\n1956.\n<\/p>\n
The Government have, however, prepared a seniority list upto
\n1967  and  evidently want to support the promotions  to\t the
\npost  of  Asstt.   Commissioner from 1962  onwards  on\tthat
\nbasis.\t In the letter dated 15-7-1968 they purport to\thave
\nprepared  this\tseniority  list\t on  the  basis\t of  certain
\nprinciples.   There is no dispute that if  these  principles
\nare  held  to be correct, then the seniority list  would  be
\nabove  challenged but the seniority list is challenged\tboth
\nby  the\t promotees  and the  direct  recruits  for  separate
\nreasons\t and it will be necessary for us to  consider  those
\nreasons,  because  those  reasons  apply  not  only  to\t the
\npromotees  after  1956 but also the promotees from  1951  to
\n1956.\tThe  principles as enumerated in  Government  letter
\ndated July 15, 1968 are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (i)   Class  11 Officers promoted to Class  1,
\n\t      Grade   II  prior\t to  1951  have\t been\tleft
\n\t      undisturbed as the mandamus covers the  period
\n\t\t\t    1951 to 1956 onwards.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  There  were\t no promotions to  Class  1,
\n\t      Grade 11, made in 1951.  The officers promoted
\n\t      to Class 1, Grade 11 in 1952 have either\tbeen
\n\t      confirmed\t as Assistant Commissioners or\tthey
\n\t      have left service.  Their seniority as Income-
\n\t      tax  Officers Class I therefore, has not\tbeen
\n\t      disturbed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) The list begins with the promotees of 1-
\n\t      1-1952.\tThe names of the 1-1-1952  promotees
\n\t      and  the direct recruit-, of 1948\t examination
\n\t      have   been   included  only   for   technical
\n\t      compliance  and  to  show\t the  context.\t The
\n\t      revision\t  of\tseniority    has    actually
\n\t      taken  place only in respect of the  promotees
\n\t      of 1-1-1953 and subsequent batches.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      497<\/span><\/p>\n
\t       (iv) In view of the difficulty in working out
\n\t      the  vacancies arising in each year the  total
\n\t      number  of  direct recruits and  promotees  in
\n\t      each year have been taken into account for the
\n\t      purpose of implementing the quota rule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)   Class  11 Officers promoted to Class  1,
\n\t      Grade II have been allowed weightage vide Rule
\n\t      1 (f) (iii) of the seniority rules Any  excess
\n\t      promotions over the quota in a particular year
\n\t      have  been carried forward to  the  subsequent
\n\t      year and taken against the promotions of\tthat
\n\t      particular  year\tand given  weightage  accor-
\n\t      dingly.  The excess in that year has similarly
\n\t      been carried forward to the following year and
\n\t      so on.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)  The\t quota\tfor direct  recruitment\t and
\n\t      promotion has
\n\t      been   66-2\/3   per  cent:  331\/3\t  per\tcent
\n\t      respectively since 1951. The calculations have
\n\t      accordingly been made on this basis.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vii) As\ta  result  of  the  adjustment,\t 154
\n\t      junior-most  officiating Income-tax  Officers,
\n\t      Class I (promotees) have been 66-2\/3 per cent:
\n\t      33\/3  per\t cent respectively  since  cess\t has
\n\t      arisen because in 1959-60, 214 Class 11  posts
\n\t      were  upgraded to Class I and these  were\t ex-
\n\t      clusively\t filled up by promotions from  Class
\n\t      II).   The names of these officers  appear  at
\n\t      the bottom of this list.\tThese promotees have
\n\t      not  been given any weightage.  They  will  be
\n\t      adjusted against the vacancies falling in\t the
\n\t      promotion\t  quota\t in  future  years.    These
\n\t      officers\twill, however, continue to  work  as
\n\t      Class I Officers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Since  the  whole  argument  before  us\t was  based  on\t the
\ncorrectness  or\t otherwise of these principles, it  will  be
\nmore  convenient  to deal with these  principles  one  after
\nanother,  noting  in  the  appropriate\tplace  the   several
\ncontentions of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
Principle  (i) is correct and no possible objection  can  be
\nraised\tto  it because the mandamus covers only\t the  period
\nfrom  1951  to 1956 and does not affect promotions  made  to
\nClass 1, Grade 11 prior to 1951.\n<\/p>\n
Principles  (ii) and (iii) deal with promotions made in\t the
\nyears  1951 and 1952.  In 1951, there were no promotions  to
\nClass  I,  Grade 11 from Class 11,  Grade  Ill.\t  Therefore,
\nthere could be no question of any excess promotions in\tthat
\nyear.\tBut, objection is raised to the list  pertaining  to
\nthe  year  1952.  It is true that the list begins  with\t the
\npromotees  of 1-1-1952.\t Their names and also the  names  of
\ndirect recruits who finish the probation in- that year\thave
\nbeen  included in the list but this, it is stated, had\tbeen
\ndone for technical compliance and to show the context.\t The
\npromotees of 1952, it is stated, have been either  confirmed
\nas  Assistant Commissioners or have left service  and  since
\nunder\tthe  mandamus  promotees  confirmed   as   Assistant
\nCommissioners  are  not to be affected, it  is\tsaid,  their
\nseniority  as  Income-tax  Officer, Class  I  has  not\tbeen
\ndisturbed. if on an examination of the position of each\t one
\nof  the promotees of 1952 it is found that they have  either
\nleft service or were confirmed
\n498<\/span>
\nas  Assistant  Commissioners,  it may  well  be\t that  their
\nposition cannot be disturbed.  But it will not be correct to
\nsay  that  these  promotions  are  not\tto  be\ttaken\tinto
\nconsideration at all.  The whole object of the mandamus\t was
\nto ascertain what was the excess promotion in any particular
\nyear having regard to the permanent vacancies which occurred
\nin  that year.\tThere may or may not be any excess but\twhen
\npreparing  the\tseniority list with a view  to\tsee  whether
\nthere is any excess or not, it would not be a correct answer
\nthat  even if they are in excess they would not be  affected
\nas they are either confined Assistant Commissioners or\thave
\nleft  service.\tIf an excess number of promotions  is  found
\nfor  the year 1952 that number shall have to be pushed\tdown
\nto  the\t year 1953 and so on, and absorbed in the  quota  of
\npromotees  for\tthe  succeeding\t years.\t  In  our   opinion,
\ntherefore, principles (ii) and (iii) are partially incorrect
\nin  so far as they excuse reference to all the promotees  of
\n1952.\tThe  promotees of 1.952 should referred\t to  in\t the
\nseniority list, whether they are affected or not, the object
\nbeing the ascertainment of excess promotions.
\nPrinciple (iv) would require some detailed consideration. it
\nhas  been  consistently\t represented to this  Court  by\t the
\ndepartment  that  it  is impossible for\t them  to  give\t the
\ncorrect\t number\t of permanent vacancies\t in  any  particular
\nyear.  When  Jaisinghani’s caseheard and this  Court  called
\nupon  the department to give thenumber of vacancies, Mr.  R.
\nC. Dutt, who was the Secretary of the Finance Ministry, said
\nin  his affidavit that he was not able to work out.  inspire
\nof  his best endeavours, the number of vacancies arising  in
\nan  particular year.  All that be could do was to furnish  a
\nstatement however the number of officers recruited either by
\npromotion or direct recruitment in any particular year.\t  It
\nwas  also  represented\tthat  these  appointments  were\t  in
\nsubstantial  compliance with the quota rule.   The  received
\nquota rule dated October 18, 1951 showed that the Government
\nhad  decided in consultation with the Union  Public  Service
\nComplission  and  in modification of the previous  order  in
\nthis respect dated September 19, 1944 that for a period of 5
\nyears in the first instance, 662\/3 per cent of the vacancies
\nin  Class 1, Grade 11 will be filled by\t direct\t recruitment
\nviz. the combined competitive examination and the  remaining
\n331\/3  per  cent by promotion on the basis  of\tselect\tfrom
\nGrade  III Class 11 service.  It further provided  that\t any
\nsurplus vacancies which could not be filled by promotion for
\nwant of suitable candidates were to be added to the quota of
\nvacancies to bi-, filled by direct recuritment.\t This  quota
\nrule  is  substantially\t in compliance with rule  4  of\t the
\nIncome-tax  Officers, Class 1, Grade It Service\t Recruitment
\nRules, 1945 which authorised the Government to determine the
\nmethod\tor methods to be employed for the plane\t of  filling
\nany particular vacancies or such vacancies as required to be
\nfilled\tin  during any particular period or  the  number  of
\ncandidates  to be recruited by each method.  The methods  of
\nrecruitment  have  been\t specifically  referred\t to  in\t the
\npreceding  rule\t 3 of these Rules and they are only  two  in
\nnumber.\t  One  is  to directly\trecruit\t the  candidates  by
\ncompetitive examination and the other is by promotion on the
\nbasis of selection from Grade III.\n<\/p>\n
It  will be apparent from the rules referred to\t above\tthat
\nthe  percentage\t of 66-1\/3 per cent and 33-1\/3 per  cent  is
\nrelated to vacancies.  That
\n499<\/span>
\nwas also how it was understood in Jaisinghani’s case.\tThis
\nCourt  directed Mr. Dutt to furnish the number of  vacancies
\nwhich  had arisen from year to year.  But Mr. Dutt  informed
\nthe Court that inspite of this best endeavours he could\t not
\nstate  what  was  the number of\t vacancies  arising  in\t any
\nparticular year.  However, he was able to give the number of
\nappointments  made  in every year and wanted  the  Court  to
\naccept\tthat  that  number  represented\t substantially\t the
\nvacancies which occurred in that year.\tThat was the line of
\nargument also adopted by the Solicitor General who said that
\non the basis of the figures of appointments given there\t was
\na  substantial compliance with the quota rule.\tThis  Court,
\nhowever\t does  not appear to have been satisfied  with\tthat
\nline of reasoning.  It was observed.  “But in the absence of
\nfigures ,of permanent vacancies in Class 1, Grade 11 for the
\nrelevant  years the Solicitor General was unable to  say  to
\nwhat  extent there, had been deviation from the\t rule.”\t The
\nwhole  object  of  asking Mr. Dutt to  give  the  number  of
\nvacancies  was\tto  find  out  to  what\t extent\t there\t was\n<\/p>\n
-deviation  from  the quota rule, that is to say,  how\tmany
\npromotees  had been appointed in excess of the quota in\t any
\nparticular   year.   It\t is,  therefore,  implicit  in\t the
\nobservation  quoted  above that in order  to  determine\t the
\nexcess of promotees in any particular year it is  neces:sary
\nfor us to ascertain what was the number of vacancies in\t any
\nparticular  year.  Mr. Tarkunde, for the  promotees,  agrees
\nthat  that  is the proper construction of the rule  and\t the
\nlearned\t Attorney  General for the Union  also\taccepts\t its
\ncorrectness.  The Attorney General, however, pleads that  in
\nspite  of  the\tDepartment’s  best  endeavours\tit  was\t not
\npossible  to determine the exact number of vacancies in\t any
\nparticular  year and so he submits that for the purposes  of
\nthe  mandamus, the Court should proceed on the footing\tthat
\nthe   actual   vacancies  in  any   particular\t year\twere
\nsubstantially the same as the number of appointments made in
\nthat year.\n<\/p>\n
On  the other hand, the contention on behalf of\t the  direct
\nrecruits  is  that  the real intention of the  rule  was  to
\nsecure that at any given moment the service must consist  of
\ndirect recruits and promotees in the proportion of 2: 1. If,
\nfor example, in any year 50 direct recruits were  appointed,
\nthen  not more than 25 promotees could be appointed in\tthat
\nyear.  If also no direct recruit was appointed in a year there
\ncould  be no appointment of promotees.This line of  argument
\nhas been accepted by the High Court and it was substantially
\non  that  around that the seniority list  prepared  on\t15th
\nJuly,  1968  has  been set aside and  directions  given\t for
\npreparing  a  fresh What was, however, over-looked  is\tone.
\nthat the rule dated October 18, 1951 was not concerned\twith
\nthe  constitution of the ,cadre but was concerned as to\t bow
\npermanent  vacancies  were  to be filled.   Rule  4  of\t the
\nIncome-tax Class 1, Grade 11 Services Recruitment Rules also
\nrefers\tto  recruitment of candidates to  vacancies  in\t the
\nservice.  The vacancies for any particular year being ascer-
\ntained,\t not more than 1\/3rd of the same were to go  to\t the
\npromotees  and the rest to the direct recruits.\t  The  ratio
\nwas  not  made dependent on whether any direct\trecruit\t was
\nappointed in any particular year or not. We are,  therefore,
\nunable to accept the construction put on the quota  rule  by
\nthe High Court. In our opinion, the promotees\t  were
\nentitled to 1\/3rd of the vacancies in any particular
\n500<\/span>
\nyear  whether  or  not\tthere  was  direct  recruitment\t  by
\ncompetitive examination in that year.\n<\/p>\n
It was, therefore, essential that actual vacancies should be
\ndetermined in the cadre.  Even now before us the  Department
\nis  putting forward the plea that it is impossible for\tthem
\nto  give  the exact figure of vacancies\t in  any  particular
\nyear.\tWe  do\tsee  that there\t might\tbe  difficulties  in
\nascertaining these figures but it is rather surprising\tthat
\nthe  department\t should not be able to\tdetermine  permanent
\nvacancies  which  occurred in the years gone  by.   One\t can
\nappreciate  that it might be difficult to say at  any  given
\nmoment how many vacancies would take place in a future year.
\nOnly  a tentative estimate could be made and. it is on\tsuch
\ntentative  estimates  only that requisitions  are  made\t for
\nrecruitment by the Union Public Service Commission or by the
\nDepartmental  Promotion\t Committee.   If  there\t is   proper
\ncoordination between the several offices and the  department
\nand a proper exchange of information between them, it should
\nnot be really difficult to decide, say in the year 1968, how
\nmany actual vacancies had taken place in the previous years.
\nBut  we are now concerned with the mandamus and we  have  to
\nconsider whether there has been substantial compliance\twith
\nthe mandamus.  The learned Attorney General submits that the
\nfigures of appointments in any particular year may be  taken
\nas the most reasonable approximation of the actual vacancies
\nin  the absence of any material before the Court as  to\t the
\nactual vacancies.  Mr. Tarkunde for the promotees,  however,
\ncontends that he is in a position to give the correct number
\nof  vacancies  in any particular year on the  basis  of\t the
\nfigures taken from the record.\tHe has given a chart  marked
\nAnnexure  I  at the time of the argument and that  chart  is
\nstyled as ‘Vacancies position during the calendar year-1951-
\n1956  on  the  basis of admitted  figures.   This  chart  is
\nprincipally based on the deposition lists of officers issued
\nby  the Commissioners with reference to their charges.\t The
\nargument  of Mr. Tarkunde runs thus: We know the  sanctioned
\nstrength of Grade 11 Officers at the beginning of any  given
\nyear.\tWe also know the number of appointments made  during
\nthe  course  of\t that  year.   Further\twe  know  from\t the
\ndeposition listswhat   was   the  actual   strength   of
\nthe officers working at the endof the year.  From  these
\nfigures,  he  contends,\t it  is possible  to  find  out\t the
\nvacancies  in that particular year.  For example,  take\t the
\nyear  1952,  the  sanctioned strength of the  cadre  in\t the
\nbeginning  of the year is 217.\tAt the end of the  year\t the
\nworking strength is found to be 121.  Therefore, this  would
\nshow  that  there  would  be 96\t vacancies.   But  these  96
\nvacancies  have taken place in spite of 51 new\tappointments
\nmade  during that year.\t Therefore, the total  vacancies  in
\nthat  year would be 96+51 i.e. 147.  Mr.  Tarkunde  contends
\nthat the promotees\t     are entitled to 1\/3rd of  these
\nvacancies i.e. to say 49 vacancies and since only 49 persons
\nwere promoted in 1952 there has been no excess promotion.
\nThus  goes on the chart for other years also.\tThe  learned
\nAttorney  General  has serious objection to this  manner  of
\ncalculating  the actual vacancies and it appears to us\tthat
\nit  is not possible to proceed on the figures given  in\t the
\nchart.\t It  will  be  seen  that  from\t 1951  to  1958\t the
\nsanctioned strength of the cadre varies between 212 and\t 248
\nand if the chart is correct the total vacancies in each of
\n501<\/span>
\nthese years varies between 66 and 150.\tFor example in\t1951
\nthe sanctioned strength is 212 in the beginning of the\tyear
\nand  it\t is said that during the course of that\t year  there
\nwere  as  many\tas  150\t vacancies.In  1952  the  sanctioned
\nstrength was 217 and by the end of the\tyear it is  supposed
\nthat  147 vacancies had occurred in the cadre. It is  rather
\ndifficult  to  believe that in a cadre of this\tkind,  there
\nwould\t  be such a large proportion of vacancies either  by
\ndeath,\tretirement, resignation or promotion.\tSecondly,  a
\nserious gap would be noticed. if we test the calculations in
\na slightly different way.\n<\/p>\n
Ignore\tfor  the  time\tbeing  the  figures  given  for\t the
\nsanctioned  strength  in any particular year and go  by\t the
\nactual\tworking strength from year to year.  At the  end  of
\n1951  i.e. beginning of 1952 the working strength is 112  in
\nthe  whole department.\tIn the course of the year  1952,  51
\nnew  persons have been appointed.  Therefore, at the end  of
\nthe year 1952 the working strength should be 163.   Actually
\nit  is\t121.   This  would mean\t that  there  were  only  42
\nvacancies  in  the actual working strength and\tnot  147  as
\nshown  in  the\tchart.\t Similarly  in\t1953  and  1954\t the
\nvacancies worked out would be 19 and 74 respectively instead
\nof  112 and 95.\t We are not, therefore, satisfied that\tthis
\nchart  has  given  a  correct estimate\tof  the\t figures  of
\nvacancies in any particular year.\n<\/p>\n
In  ‘,he absence of any material which dives us\t the  actual
\nvacancies in a year, we think that in order to implement the
\nmandamus  as  far as it can possibly be done,  it  would  be
\nreasonable  Lo accept the figures of appointments  in  those
\nyears  as substantially representing the  actual  vacancies.
\nThere  is  also a subsidiary reason why\t those\tfigures\t may
\nreasonably  be\taccepted.  It is true that  the\t quota\trule
\nrefers\tto vacancies but the vacancies are  those  vacancies
\nwhich  the Government wants to fill.  It is the\t prerogative
\nof  the Government, reflected further in Rule 4 referred  to
\nabove,\twhether\t any vacancy may be filled at  all  or\tnot.
\nEven  if  there are 100 vacancies in a particular  year\t the
\nGovernment is not bound to fill all those vacancies.  It may
\nfill  only  90\tof  them and no body  can  insist  that\t the
\nGovernment shall fill up all the vacancies.  Therefore, when
\nthe  quota  rule refers to vacancies it is implicit  in\t the
\nrule  that the vacancies are vacancies which the  Government
\nwants  to  fill,  whatever  may\t be  the  actual  number  of
\nvacancies.   The actual appointments are. therefore, in\t the
\nabsence of any evidence to the contrary, the correct measure
\nof the vacancies which the Government wanted to fill.\tFrom
\nthat point of view also it will be permissible to proceed to
\nthe  footing  that  the actual\tappointments  represent\t the
\nactual\tvacancies which the Government wanted to fill.\t For
\nexample, if in the year 1953, 53 posts were filled by direct
\nrecruits  and 38 by promotees the total vacancies sought  to
\nbe  filled would be 91 in which case the promotees would  be
\nentitled  to 30 vacancies.  That is how the  Government\t has
\nproceeded to determine the excess for each year from 1953 to
\n1957 as shown at Annexure ‘N’ (p. 26 Vol.  I in Civil Appeal
\nNo. 2060(N) 1971).  In :our opinion the procedure adopted by
\nthe department in determining the excess number of promotees
\nappointed  in  the several years is  substantially  correct.
\nAnnexure ‘N’ begins with the year 1953.\t It should begin
\n502<\/span>
\nwith  the year 1952 and not 1953.  Indeed the 5 year  period
\nstarts from 1951 and ends with 1956 but since there-, was no
\npromotion  in 1951 the question of excess in that year\tdoes
\nnot  arise.  For the purposes of the mandamus the  seniority
\nlist  will have to be resettled from the year  1952  showing
\nnot  merely the excess from the years 1953 to 1956 but\tfrom
\n1952  to 1956.\tAt the end of 1956 the progressive total  of
\nthe excess over the quota will be known and this excess,  as
\nalready\t pointed out, is liable to be absorbed in the  quota
\nof the years succeeding 1956.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tfeebly con-tended on behalf of the  direct  recruits
\nthat  the  quota  rule should relate to\t only  vacancies  in
\npermanent posts and not temporary posts.  This contention is
\nnot  accepted  either  by he promotees\tor  the\t department.
\nThere is nothing in the Rule., of 1945 or the quota rule  of
\n1951  which  says that the vacancies must  be  vacancies  in
\npermanent  Posts.   Indeed the vacancies must  be  permanent
\nvacancies  that is to say vacancies which are not for a\t few
\ndays  or for a few months or are otherwise  adventitious.The
\nwhole  cadre has consisted of permanent and temporary  posts
\nfor  years.  Permanent vacancies are, therefore,  likely  to
\ntake place both in the permanent posts and in the  temporary
\nposts.\t In   fact  Dutt,  in  his   affidavit\t  filed\t  in
\nJaisinghani’s case had clearly alleged in paras 25 and 26 of
\nthe   affidavit\t that  all  the\t     direct  recruits\tfrom
\n1948 onwards were   initially  appointed  against  temporary
\nposts and even at the time ofthe  filing-of  the  affidavit
\ni.e. on 31st January, 1967 direct recruitswere\t    being
\nappointed  against temporary posts. We, therefore,  find  no
\nsufficient  warrant  for the contention that  the  vacancies
\nreferred  to in the quota rule are vacancies only  in  under
\npermanent posts.\n<\/p>\n
Principle  V  is  obviously  correct.\tClass  If   officers
\npromoted to Class 1, Grade 11 have been allowed weightage in
\naccordance  with  rule 1 (f) (iii) of the  seniority  Rules.
\nThat  rule,  in\t effect.. provides that\t a  promote  in\t any
\nparticular  year  not  only gets  seniority  over  a  direct
\nrecruit appointed in that year but also in the two  Previous
\nyears.\t Any  promotions in excess of the quota have  to  be
\ncarried forward to the subsequent year and taken against the
\nquota  of  promotions  of that\tparticular  year  and  given
\nweightage  accordingly.\t That is how it should go on.\tThat
\nprinciple is fully available for the period 1951 to 1956, in
\nviewof the fact that the quota rule of 18-10-1951 was to be
\nin forcefor 5 years in the first instance.\n<\/p>\n
What is then the positionfor  the  years  after\t  1956?
\nDoes the quota rule apply? It is clearthat,  by\t its   own
\nforce the quota rule will not apply because it was,  indeed,
\nto  be in force for 5 years. There is no force also  in\t the
\ncontention  that if this quota rule of 1951 ceases  to\thave
\neffect,\t then  the quota rule of 1944 which laid  I  down  a
\nratio  of  4:1 would automatically revive.  As a  matter  of
\nfact,  this 1951 rule had been made in supersession  of\t the
\nvoid  rule  as\ta  matter of policy.   The  old\t rule  being
\nsuperseded  was dead, and could not be revived by  the\tfact
\nthat  the superseding rule cases to have operation  after  a
\ncertain\t number of years.  It is an admitted fact  that\t the
\nGovernment  did not prescribe in writing any new quota\trule
\nafter 1956 but as a matter of practice, it was stated by
\n503<\/span>
\nGovernment  the\t guideline  of\tthe  quota  prescribed\t was
\nfollowed  even\tafter  the expiry of 5\tyears  except  in  2
\ninstances  once\t in 1958 and at another time  in  1960.\t  In
\nthese  2 years in all 214 Grade III posts were\tupgraded  to
\nGrade  11  posts and an equal number of Grade  III  officers
\nwere  appointed to class I by promotion on an ad hoc  basis.
\n[See: Annexure J p. 216 in Vol.\t I of Civil Appeal No.\t2060
\n(N) of 1971.  It appears to us that if the Govt. had decided
\nto  follow the old quota rule as a guideline that  would  be
\nperfectly consistent with rule 4 of the Recruitment Rules of
\n1945  already  referred\t to. We shall deal  later  with\t the
\nquestion  of  the ad-hoc promotion of 214 vacancies  in\t the
\nyears 1959 & 1960.  It cannot be doubted that the Govt.\t was
\nentitled  by  reason of rule 4 to follow the quota  rule  of
\n1951  as a rough guideline without going to the\t trouble  of
\nputting the same on record in so many words.  When the\trule
\nis  followed as a guideline and appointments made, a  slight
\ndeviation  from\t the quota would not be\t material.   But  if
\nthere  is  an enormous deviation, other\t considerations\t may
\narise.\tIn the normal course, therefore, the Govt. would  be
\nentitled to prepare the seniority list till the end of\t1958
\nin accordance with the quota rule of 1951.\n<\/p>\n
What is then the position with regard to the seniority\tlist
\nafter  the year 1958?  It appears that for  sometime  before
\n1959 Govt. was considering upgrading a large number of class
\nII,  Grade  III posts to class 1, Grade\t It  posts.   Direct
\nrecruits  who,\tafter  probation, started  working,  in\t the
\ndepartment  had naturally no experience of assessment  work.
\nOn the other hand, class 11, Grade III officers had at least
\n3  years  experience  of assessment  work.   The  department
\nthought that it would be expedient and just to increase\t the
\nnumber of class 1, Grade II posts and to appoint to them  on
\nselective  merit  class\t 11,  Grade  III  officers  who\t had
\nsufficient  experience\tof the assessment.  That  is  how  a
\ndecision was taken at the end of 1958 to upgrade a number of
\nposts  in class 11, Grade III and appoint officers in  Grade
\nIII in those upgraded posts. On January 16, 1959  Government
\nin  the\t Ministry of Finance wrote to all  Commissioners  of
\nIncome-tax  that the President had sanctioned the  upgrading
\nto  class I of 100 temporary posts of  Income-tax  officers,
\nClass  It.  Upgrading of a post involves the transfer  of  a
\npost from the lower grade  to\tthe  higher  grade  and\t the
\npromotion of one of the incumbents of\tthat  post  to\t the
\nupgraded post. If 100 posts are upgraded     from  class  11
\nto class 1, class 11 posts will dwindle by 100 posts   and
\nclass  I  posts\t will increase by  100\tposts.\tThese  extra
\nupgraded posts are then filled by selection of 100  officers
\nof  class  II.\tIf that is not done, 100 class\t11  officers
\nwill have no posts in class 11 after 100 posts are  upgraded
\nto  class 1. Then again a second time on December  9,  1960,
\nGovt.  sanctioned further upgrading of 114 posts from  class
\n11  to class 1. These a 114 posts consisted of 80  permanent
\nposts  and 34 temporary posts.\tThus in all between  1959-60
\naltogether 214 posts were upgraded and filled by  promotees.
\nGovernment’s  contention was that these promotions had\tbeen
\non an ad hoc basis.  All these 214 promotions were not\tmade
\nin 1959-60 only.  They were spaced over 3\/4 years.  But\t the
\npoint is that the cadre of class 1, Grade II as it stood  in
\n1958 enorneously increased by this addition of 214  upgraded
\nposts.\tIf
\n505<\/span>
\npromotees  seniority over direct recruits not only  of\tthat
\nyear  but also of the two previous years.  In  other  words,
\nMr.  Tarkunde’s\t contention is that the quota rule  and\t the
\nseniority  rule deserved to be considered  independently  of
\neach  other.  That is, however, ,contrary to the view  which
\nhad already been taken in Jaisinghani’s case and, we do\t not
\nthink  that  there  is sufficient ground for us\t to  take  a
\ndifferent  view.   In our opinion, with the upgrading  of  a
\nlarge  number  of  posts and the  appointments\tto  them  of
\npromotees,  the\t quota\trule collapsed\tand  with  that\t the
\nseniority rule also.  The decision to upgrade 100 posts\t was
\ntaken  in January, 1959 and the remaining 114 posts  in\t the
\nyear 1960.  In our opinion the quota rule came to an end  on
\nJanuary\t 16,  1959 when sanction to  upgrade  100  temporary
\nposts  was  given by the President, and with that  went\t the
\nseniority rule.\n<\/p>\n
It  would therefore, follow that the seniority list  to\t the
\nextent\tthat it was prepared on the basis of the quota\trule
\ndated\t18-10-1951  r\/w-seniority  rule\t 1(f)(iii)   already
\nreferred  to above would be valid with regard to  promotions
\nmade upto 15-1-1959 but would not be valid after that  date.
\nIndeed it might happen that there was a spill over or excess
\nof  promotees  promoted\t before 15-1-1959  but\tthat  excess
\nnumber can be absorbed on a priority basis on or  after\t 16-
\n1-1959.\n<\/p>\n
But if\t  the  seniority  rule\t1 (f)  (iii)  ceased  to  be
\noperative from 16-1-1959 how.  is  the\tinter-se   seniority
\nbetween\t the direct recruits and the promotees to  be  fixed
\nthereafter  ? Several suggestions were made with a  view  to
\npersuade  us that some fair and just seniority rule  may  be
\nevolved.  One of them was that the quota rule may still hold
\nthe  field  and that those who came in by promotion  to\t the
\nupgraded  posts\t may  be ranked lower in  seniority  to\t the
\ndirect recruit who had finished his probation in that  year.
\nA  second  suggestion  was  the\t one  put  forward  by\t the
\nGovernment in the letter dated 17-2-1960 to the Union Public
\nService\t Commission  wherein a package deal  was  suggested.
\nThe seniority list, as it stood, was to go and in its  place
\nthe  seniority rule should be that promoted officers in\t any
\ncalendar  year\tshould\tbe senior  to  the  direct  recruits
\nappointed  that year only.  Having made that  concession  in
\nfavour of the direct recruits in response to their demand it
\nwas  suggested\tthat  the quota\t of  departmental  promotees
\nshould\tbe raised from 331\/3% to 50%.  In other words,\there
\nwas  a\tpackage\t deal whereby every  year  the\tappointments
\nshould\tbe  divided  equally  between  direct  recruits\t and
\npromotion and the promotees being already in the  department
\nshould be given seniority over the new direct recruits.\t  We
\ndo  not think that we shall be justified in  expressing\t our
\nopinion\t as to how inter se seniority is to be\tfixed  after
\n15-1-1959.   Since  the\t old seniority rule  has  ceased  to
\noperate\t by reason of the infringement of the quota rule  it
\nwill  be  for  the Government to  devise,  if  necessary  in
\nconsultation  with  the Union Public Service  Commission,  a
\njust and fair seniority rule as between the direct  recruits
\nand the promotees for being given effect to from  16-1-1959.
\nIt follows, therefore, that the seniority list of  15-7-1968
\nwill  have to be set aside and the department will  have  to
\nprepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the
\n506<\/span>
\n observations  made in this judgment.  Broadly speaking\t the
\nseniority  list from 1951 to 15-1-1959 will be\tprepared  in
\naccordance  with  the quota rule of 1951 r\/w  the  seniority
\nrule 1(f) (iii).  The seniority list from 16-1-1959 will  be
\nprepared  in accordance with the rule to be freshly made  by
\nthe Government in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
In  view of the above, principles VI and VII do not  survive
\nfor further consideration separately.\n<\/p>\n
After  the fresh seniority list is made in  accordance\twith
\nthe  above directions it will be open to any direct  recruit
\nor  promote  to\t point out to the  department  that  in\t the
\nselections  made to the post of Assistant Commissioner\tfrom
\n1962 onwards, he, being otherwise eligible, was entitled  on
\naccount\t of the new seniority given to him to be  considered
\nfor  promotion to the post of Assistant\t Commissioner.\t The
\ndepartment  may have to consider his case for  promotion  on
\nhis  record  as\t on  the date when be  ought  to  have\tbeen
\nconsidered  for selection but not so considered.  If  he  is
\nselected, his position will be adjusted in the cadre of\t the
\nAssistant   Commissioners  without  affecting  the   promote
\nAssistant  Commissioners  who had been\tconfirmed  prior  to
\n22-2-1967-the  date  on\t which the  Jaisinghani’s  case\t was
\ndisposed of by this Court. ,
\nAs  already shown these proceeding-, before us arise out  of
\nthe  mandamus  issued by this Court in\tJaisinghani’s  case.
\nThe  seniority\tlist  was  prepared  by\t the  Government  in
\npursuance of the mandamus.  We have found that the seniority
\nlist is not correct- and will have to be prepared afresh  in
\naccordance with the directions and observations made in this
\njudgment.    The  demand  made\tby  the\t officers  for\t the
\nimplementation\tof the mandamus is stilt unfulfilled and  it
\ncan  be\t achieved only after the Government files  a  proper
\nlist of seniority.  These proceedings, therefore, will\thave
\nto be kept pending till such, a, seniority list is  prepared
\nand  filed  in court.  The respondents namely the  Union  of
\nIndia.\tthe  Ministry of Finance and the  Central  Board  of
\nDirect\tTaxes  are  therefore directed to  prepare  a  fresh
\nseniority list and file it in Court.  It will be appreciated
\nthat this dispute regarding seniority is pending before\t the
\nCourt  for  several years and it is very essential  that  it
\nshould\t be  resolved  without\tfurther\t delay.\t   We\tare,
\ntherefore, of the view that the respondents charged with the
\npreparation  of the fresh list shall prepare it and file  it
\nin  court  within six months from the date  of\tthis  order.
\nAfter  the same is filed, liberty to apply is given  to\t the
\nparties to the proceedings.*
\nS.R.\n<\/p>\n
Case remanded
\n*See also [1975] 1 S.C.R. 104.\n<\/p>\n
NGIPRRNTD-10 SC\/75-111-Day-13-2-76-2500.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2627, 1975 SCR 491 Author: D Palekar Bench: Sikri, S.M. (Cj), Ray, A.N., Dua, I.D., Palekar, D.G., Beg, M. Hameedullah PETITIONER: BISHAN SARUP GUPTA Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS(With connected civil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-135909","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\"},\"wordCount\":7612,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\",\"name\":\"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972","datePublished":"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972"},"wordCount":7612,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972","name":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With ... on 16 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-08-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-23T11:20:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bishan-sarup-gupta-vs-union-of-india-and-orswith-on-16-august-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bishan Sarup Gupta vs Union Of India And Ors(With … on 16 August, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135909","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=135909"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/135909\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=135909"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=135909"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=135909"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}