Income-tax Service-Seniority Rules, 1952, r. 1(f) (iii) and (iv)- Seniority between direct recruits and promotees-If violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of Constitution-Promotion Rules, r. 4-Promotion from Class 1, Grade 11 to Grade I-Different periods of service for direct recruits and promotees-If discriminatory-Income-tax Officers (Class 1, Grade II) Service Recruitment Rules, r. 4-Fixation of quota-Duty to follow, if mandatory.

In 1944, the Government of India created two classes of Income-tax Service, namely, Class I service with Grades I and II, and Class II service with Grade III. Recruitment to Class I, Grade II was to be made: (a) by direct recruitment through a competitive examination, and (b) by pro- motion from Class II, Grade III. A Class II officer is considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to Class I, Grade II, after 5 years' service in Class II (2 years of probation and 3 years as Income-tax Officer). In 1951, the ratio between direct recruits and promotees was fixed at 2:1, presumably under r. 4 of the Income-tax Officers (Class I Grade II) Service Recruitment Rules. Seniority Rules, 1952, deal Under r 1(f) (iii) of the dealing with seniority between direct recruits and promotees, a promotee becomes senior to a direct recruit who has completed the probationary period of two years in the very year in which the Department Promotion Committee recommends the officers in Class II for promotion to Class I. Rule 1(f) (iv) deals with a special situation in which an officer initially appointed to Class II service is given seniority in the same manner as a departmental promotee, if subsequent to his passing the departmental examination he is appointed in Class I on the results of the competitive examination.

Rule 4 of the Rules of Promotion of the Central Board of Revenue Office Procedure Manual, states, that the prescribed minimum service for an officer of Class I, Grade II for promotion to Grade I is 5 years gazetted service including 1 year in Class I, Grade II. For a promotee from Class II, the minimum period of service for promotion to Class I, Grade I, would be actually 4 years service in Class II and 1 year service in Class I, Grade II.

Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were appointed in Class II, Grade III Service in 1947. They and the appellant (who was a direct recruit) were appoint- ed in Class I, Grade II service in 1951 after having successfully completed in the 1950 competitive examination The three respondents were how- ever shown as seniors to the appellant as "deemed promotees" under r. 1 (f) (iv).

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and contended that (1) r. 1(f) (iii) and (iv) of the Seniority Rules and r. 4 of the Pro- motion Rules were discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and (2) that during 1951-56 there was excessive recruitment of promotees, in violation of the quota rule prescribing the ratio of 2: 1.