# MALOON LAWRENCE CECIL D' SOUZA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 409
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 296 of 1971
- **Bench:** A. N. Ray, H. R. Khanna, M. H. Beg, Andy. V. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/maloon-lawrence-cecil-d-souza-v-union-of-india-ors-6529
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India, 1950,
Article
16-Seniority List, validity ofPromotion of petitioner as Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax prior to
respond~rus 4 to 26-Petitioner, if could claim seniority over respondents in
C
.subsequent ser.iority list.
On July 1, 1947 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Offi~r Class IT.
On August 12, 1949 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Officer Class
I
Grade II in post-1945 vacancy reserved for candidates with war service.
On
January 24, 1950 a seniority list of Income-Tax Officers Class I Grade JI as
on January 1, 1950 was issued on the basis of 1947 Seniority Rules. The
petitioner was shown in that list senior to respondents 4 to 26. The same
position was reflected in a seniority list issued in 1958. The petitioner was
prompted as Income Tax Officer Class I Gtade I with effect from January 1,
1951 and confirmed in that post from the said date. The Rules of 1974 were
revised and in supersession of them 1952 Seniority Rules were issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Income-Tax department took -some time to
revise the seniority list of Income-tax Officers Class I in accordance with
1952 Seniority Rules and finally on November 26, 1956
revised
seniority
list of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade I as on October, 1 1956, was issued.
In this list respondents 4 to 26 were shown senior to the petitioner and were
entitled to be promoted to higher posts earlier than the petitioner. Another
"Seniority list of Assistant Commissioners was issued as on January l, 1958 in
conformity with the earlier list of 1956 showing the petitioner to be junior
to respondents 4 to 26.
By this time the petitioner and respondents 4 to 26
had all been promoted Assistant Com.missioners.
This Court in Karnik's case 78 I.T.R. 243 held that the following princi-
\ples emerge from 1952 Rules for determining the_ seniority. (i) Between Jncometax officers promoted at the same meeting, their seniority inter se will be
reflected in the list of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax; (ii) Between
an officer promoted earlier and another officer senior to him but who was
not considered in the meeting when the former was promoted, seniority in the
list of Income-tax Officers will be reflected in the higher cadre; (iii) Where
the senior officer was considered and not promoted, and the junior officer
\Vas promoted at that meeting. the order of promotion will govern seniority
in the higher grade and (iv) Where senior officer is promoted and confirmed
and at a later meeting a junior officer is promoted, the latter cannot claim
to be placed above the senio1 officer in the higher cad.re relying upon the
circumstance that he could not be considered for promotion at the earlier
meeting, because he had not to his credit the qualifying minimum service.
In pursuance of the above judgment of this Court, seniority of. Income-tax
Assistant Commissioners promoted before Avril 1. 1964 was recast and new
seniority list was issued on February 1, 1971. The petitioner filed this writ
petition challenging the seniority list of Additional Commissioners ·of Incometax as on February 1, 1971 circulated by the Government of India, Ministry
of Finance.
'
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as he was promoted
Assistant Commissioner on August 19, 1955 while respondents 4 to 26 were
promoted to that post subsequent to that date, the petitioner should be shown ·
senior to those respondents.
D
E
F
G
H
1
r
410
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP· S.C.R.
Rejecting the contention and dismissing the \Vrit petition.
HELD : (i) The fact that the petitioner was
promoted
a'i
Assistant
Con1missioner prior to respondents 4 to 26 \Vould not make him senior to
respondents 4 to 26 because according to the seniority list issued on the basis
of 1952 Seniority Rules the above mentioned respondents were senior to the
petitioner. The seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 26 has.
to be delermined in the light of proposition No. 2 lai

## Text

)
)
...
409
MALOON LAWRENCE CECIL D' SOUZA
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
May lst, 1975
B
[A. N. RAY, C. J., H. R. KHANNA, M. H. BEG, ANDY. V.
CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution
of
India, 1950,
Article
16-Seniority List, validity ofPromotion of petitioner as Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax prior to
respond~rus 4 to 26-Petitioner, if could claim seniority over respondents in
C
.subsequent ser.iority list.
On July 1, 1947 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Offi~r Class IT.
On August 12, 1949 the petitioner was appointed Income-Tax Officer Class
I
Grade II in post-1945 vacancy reserved for candidates with war service.
On
January 24, 1950 a seniority list of Income-Tax Officers Class I Grade JI as
on January 1, 1950 was issued on the basis of 1947 Seniority Rules. The
petitioner was shown in that list senior to respondents 4 to 26. The same
position was reflected in a seniority list issued in 1958. The petitioner was
prompted as Income Tax Officer Class I Gtade I with effect from January 1,
1951 and confirmed in that post from the said date. The Rules of 1974 were
revised and in supersession of them 1952 Seniority Rules were issued by the
Ministry of Home Affairs.
The Income-Tax department took -some time to
revise the seniority list of Income-tax Officers Class I in accordance with
1952 Seniority Rules and finally on November 26, 1956
revised
seniority
list of Income-tax Officers Class I Grade I as on October, 1 1956, was issued.
In this list respondents 4 to 26 were shown senior to the petitioner and were
entitled to be promoted to higher posts earlier than the petitioner. Another
"Seniority list of Assistant Commissioners was issued as on January l, 1958 in
conformity with the earlier list of 1956 showing the petitioner to be junior
to respondents 4 to 26.
By this time the petitioner and respondents 4 to 26
had all been promoted Assistant Com.missioners.
This Court in Karnik's case 78 I.T.R. 243 held that the following princi-
\ples emerge from 1952 Rules for determining the_ seniority. (i) Between Jncometax officers promoted at the same meeting, their seniority inter se will be
reflected in the list of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax; (ii) Between
an officer promoted earlier and another officer senior to him but who was
not considered in the meeting when the former was promoted, seniority in the
list of Income-tax Officers will be reflected in the higher cadre; (iii) Where
the senior officer was considered and not promoted, and the junior officer
\Vas promoted at that meeting. the order of promotion will govern seniority
in the higher grade and (iv) Where senior officer is promoted and confirmed
and at a later meeting a junior officer is promoted, the latter cannot claim
to be placed above the senio1 officer in the higher cad.re relying upon the
circumstance that he could not be considered for promotion at the earlier
meeting, because he had not to his credit the qualifying minimum service.
In pursuance of the above judgment of this Court, seniority of. Income-tax
Assistant Commissioners promoted before Avril 1. 1964 was recast and new
seniority list was issued on February 1, 1971. The petitioner filed this writ
petition challenging the seniority list of Additional Commissioners ·of Incometax as on February 1, 1971 circulated by the Government of India, Ministry
of Finance.
'
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that as he was promoted
Assistant Commissioner on August 19, 1955 while respondents 4 to 26 were
promoted to that post subsequent to that date, the petitioner should be shown ·
senior to those respondents.
D
E
F
G
H
1
r
410
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP· S.C.R.
Rejecting the contention and dismissing the \Vrit petition.
HELD : (i) The fact that the petitioner was
promoted
a'i
Assistant
Con1missioner prior to respondents 4 to 26 \Vould not make him senior to
respondents 4 to 26 because according to the seniority list issued on the basis
of 1952 Seniority Rules the above mentioned respondents were senior to the
petitioner. The seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 26 has.
to be delermined in the light of proposition No. 2 laid do\\n by this Court
in Karniks case, according to which bet ween an officer promoted earlier and
another officer senior to him. but who \Vas not considered in the meeting
\\·hen the former \Vas promoted, seniority in the list of Income-tax Officers.
will be reflected in the higher cadre.
As respondents 4 to 26 were admittedly
sho\vn senior to the petitioner in the list as on October 1, 1956 prepared in
accordance with 1952 Rules, their seniority qua the petitioner would be reflected in the higher cadre of Assistant Commissioner. [ 412 GH]
(ii) It has not been sho\vn that the names of respondents 4 to 26 were
also considered in the· meeting wherein a decision was taken to promote the
petitioner as Assistant Commissioner. Assuming that a decision to promote
f'espondents 4 to 26 to the posts of Assistant Commissioners was taken at
the same meeting in which it \Vas decided to promote the petitioner, in that
event proposition No. 1 in Karnik's case would be attracted. Even in such
a contingency the seniority of respondents 4 to 26 qua the petitioner \Vould
be reflected in the list of A·sslstant Commissioners. In the seniority list of
Assistant Commissioners issued in 1958, the petitioner was shovm junior to
respcndeats 4 to 26 in conformity with the seniority list of 1956.
In the
matter of confirmation to the post of Assistant Commissioner, six out of
respondents 4 to 26 confirmed earlier then the petitioner.
v.·hil~ the rest of
them were confirmed at the same time as the petitione-r.
The impugned list
of seniority circulated in 1971 merely reflected the seniority of the petitionet'"
qua respondents 4 to 26 as determined in 1956. [412 H, 413 A·C]
S. K. Gliosh & Anr. v. nion of India & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 631
referred
to.
HELD FURTIIER-(iii) The seniority of the petitioner qua respondents 4
to 26 was determined as long ago as 1956 in accordance with 1952 ·Rules. The
said seniority was reiterated i.n the seniority list issued in 1958. The present
writ petition was filed in 1971. No satisfactory expJnnation has been furnished
by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in approaching the court. It is no
doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued in
1956 and 1958 but the representation was rejected in 1961.
No cogent
ground has been shown as to why the petitioner becarn~ quiescent and
took
no dilige.nt steps to obtain redress. The petitioner,
therefore,
cannot
be
allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of so many years. [413EFGHJ
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 296 of 1971.
G
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
H
Ram Panjawani and B. R. Agarwala, for the petitioner.
S. N. Prasad and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Memo for the respondents Nos. 4 to 26.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KTIANNA, J.-This is a petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India by Malcom Lawrence Cecil
D'Souza,
Additional
Commissioner of Income-tax for an appropriate writ to quash the
seniority list of the Additional Commissioners of Income-tax as on
February L 1971 circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance. The petitioner claims that he is senior to respondents 4
'
)
,
MALOON LAWRENCE v. UNION (Khanna,!.)
411
to 26, but in tlie impuged list he is shown junior to those responA
dents.
Prayer has also been made by the petitioner for other consequential reliefs.
Apart from respondents 4 to 26, the petitioner has
impleaded the Union of India, the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue and the Chairman. Central Board of Direct
Taxes as respondents 1 to 3.
The petitioner served in the Royal Navy as a Sub-lieutenant from
March 1945 till November 1946 when he was released
from
the
naval service because of the end of war.
On July 1, 1947
the
petitioner was ·appointed Income-tax Office Class II. On August 12,
1949 the petitioner was appointed Income-tax Officer Class I Grade II
in post-1945 vacancy reserved for candidates with war service.
On
January 24, 1950 a seniority list of Income-tax Officers Class
I
Grade II as on January l, 1950 was issued on the basis of 1947
Seniority Rules.
The petitioner was shown in that list senior
to
respondents 4 to 26.
The same position was reflected in a seniority
list issued in 1953. The petitioner was promoted
as
Income-tax
Officer Class I Grade I with effect from January 1, 1951 and confirmed in that post from the said date.
B
c
D
According to 1947 ,Rules, the seniority of candidates
inter se
appointed to post-1945 vacancies was to be determined by age irrespective of the category from which they were recruited.
The
Rules of 1947 were revised and in
supersession
of them
1952
Seniority Rules were issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
AccordE
ing, inter alia, to 1952 Seniority Rules, the break in service was not
to be taken into account for determining the seniority of persons confirmed against post 1945 was reserved vacancies. The Income-tax
Department took some time to revise the seniority list of Income-tax
Officers Gass I in accordance with 1952 Seniority Rules and finally
on November 26, 1956 the revised seniority list of Income-tax Officers
Class I Grade I as on October 1, 1956 was issued.
In this list
F
respondents 4 to 26 were shown senior tO the petitioner and were
entitled to be promoted to higher posts earlier than the petitioner.
Another seniority list of Assistant Commissioners was' issued as on
January 1, 1958.
This list was in accordance with the earlier list
of Income-tax Officers as on October I, 1956 showing the petitioner
to be junior to respondents 4 to 26.
It may be stated that by this
time the petitioner and respondents 4 to 26 had all been promoted
G
Assistant Commissioners.
The seniority list of Income-tax Assistant Commissioners as on
August I, 1965 was challenged by Assistant Commissioner Vasant
J ayaram· Karnik in Gujarat High Court by means of a writ petition
filed in 1967.
The High Court allowed that petition and issued a
writ quashing the seniority list as on August L 1965 in so far as
H
that list showed several officers senior to Karnik and another officer
B. S. Nadkarni.
The High Cour{ gave its own interpretation of the
1952 Seniority Rules.
An appeal was filed in this Court on behalf
of the Union of India against the above judgment of the Gujarat
High Court in 1969.
This Court as per judgment dated September
7, 1970, reported in 78 ITR 243 dismissed that appeal.
This Court
1
r
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975] SUPP· s.c.R.
A
held that the following principles emerge from 1952 Rules for determining the seniority :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"(i) Between Income-tax Officers promoted at the sam~
meeting, their seniority inter se will be reflected in
the list of Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax;
(ii) Between an officer promoted earlier and another officer senior to him, but who was .not considered in
the meeting when the former was promoted, seniority
in the list of Income-tax Officers will be reflected in
the higher cadre;
(iii) Where the senior officer was considered and not promoted, and the junior officer was promoted at that
meeting, the order of promotion will govern seniority
in the higher grade ;
(iv) Where a senior officer is promoted and confirmed
and at a later meeting a junior officer is promoted.
the latter cannot claim to be placed above the senior
officer in the higher cadre relying upon the circums·
tance that he could not be considered for promotion
at the earlier meeting, because he had not to his
credit the qualifying minimum service."
In pursuance of the above judgment of this
Court,
seniority
of
Income-tax Assistant Commissioners promoted before April 1, 1964
was recast and the impugn.ed seniority list was accordingly issued.
The petition has been resisted by the respondents and the affidavit of P. S. Mehra, Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance has been
fil~ in opposition to the petition.
It has been argued by Mr. Ram Panjwani on behalf of the petitioner that as he was promoted Assistant Collllllissioner on August
19, 1955 while respondents 4 to 26 were promoted to that post
subsequent to that date, the petitioner should be shown senior to those
respondents.
We find it difficult to accede to this contention.
The
fact that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Commissioner prior
to respondents 4 to 26 would not make him senior to respondents
4 to 26 because according to the seniority list issued on the basis of
1952 Seniority Rules the above-mentioned respondents were senior
to the peiitioner.
The seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents
4 to 26 has to be determined in the light of proposition No- 2 laid
down by this Court in Karnik's case (supra), according to
which
between an officer promoted earlier and another officer senior to him.
but who was not considered in the meeting when the former was
promoted, seniority in the list of Income-tax Officers will be reflected
in the higher cadre.
As respondents 4 to 26 were admittedly shown
senior to the petitioner in the list as on October L 1956 prepared in
accordance with 1952 Rules, their seniority qua the petitioner would
be reflected in the higher cadre of A~sistant Commissioners. It ,!:tas
not been shown to us that the names of respondents 4 to 26 were
)
j
,
MALOON LAWRENCE v. UNION (Khanna, J.)
413
also considered in the meeting wherein a decision was taken to proA
mote the petitioner as' Assistant Commissioner.
Assuming that a
decision to promote respondents 4 to 26 to the posts of Assistant
Commissioners was taken at the same meeting in which it was decided
to promote the petitioner, in that event proposition No. 1 in Karnik's
case (supra) would be attracted.
Even in such a contingency the
. seniority of respondents 4 to 26 qua the petitioner would be reflected
B
in the list of Assistant Commissioners. In the seniority list of ASsistant Commissioners issued in 1958, the petitioner was shown junior
to respondents 4 to 26 in conformity with the seniority list of 1956.
In the matter of confirmation to the post of Assistant Commissioner,
six out of respondents 4 to 26 were confirmed earlier than the petitioner, while the rest of them were confirmed at the same time as the
petitioner. The impugned list of seniority circulated in 1971 merely
C
reflected the seniority of the petitioner qua respondents 4 to 26 as
determined in 1956.
The case of S. K. Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors(') to
which reference has been made on behalf of the petitioners can be
of no assistance to him as that case related to rules for recruitment
to the grade of Directors of Postal Services in Indian Postal Service.
So far as the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents 4 to 26
is concerned, the matter is governed by 1952 Seniority Rules
and
those rules as already mentioned have been the subject of the decision
of this Court in Karnik's case (supra). In view of the direct decision
of this Court relating to the precise question with which we ~ concerned, it is not necessary, in our opinion, to refer to other rules.
The matter can also be looked at from another angle.
The
seniority of the petitioner qua respondents 4 to 26 was determined
as long ago as 1956 iu
accordance with 1952
Rules.
The said
seniority was reiterated in the seniority list issued in 1958.
The
present writ petition was filed in 1971.
The petitioner, in our opinion, cannot be allowed to challenge the seniority list after lapse of
so many years.
The fact that a seniority list was issued in 1971 in
pursnance of the decision of this Court in Karnik's case (supra)
would not clothe the petitioner with a fresh right to challenge the
fixation of his seniority qua respondents 4 to 26 as the seniority list
of 1971 merely reflected the seniority of tb petitioner qua those
respondents as already determined in 1956.
Satisfactory
service
conditions postulate that there should be no sense
of uncertainty
amongst public servants because of stale claims made after lapse of
14 or 15 years.
It is essential that any one who feels aggiieved
with an administrative decision affecting one's seniority should act
with due diligence and promptitude and not sleep over the niatter.
No satisfactory explanation bas been furnished by the petitioner before us for the inordinate delay in approaching the court.
It is no
doubt true that he made a representation against the seniority list issued
in 1956 and 1958 but that representation was rejected in 1961. No
cogent ground has been shown as to why 'the
petitioner became
quiescent and took no diligent steps to obtain redress.
Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against
administrative action for lapse of a public servant, by and large one
(lf(1968] 3 SCR 631.
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[J 975] SUPP· S.C.R.
A of the essential requirements of contentment and efficiency in puplic
services is a feeling of security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee
such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to
ensure that matters like one's position in the seniority list after having
been settled for once should not be liable to be reopened after lapse
of many years at the instance of a party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quiet.
Raking up old matters like.
B
seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complication,s and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matter. should
be ,given a quietus after lapse of some time.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances
C
Without costs.
V.M.K.
Petition dismissed.