Holding

The Supreme Court held that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata barred the fresh challenges, that excess‑quota promotions are fortuitous and confer no seniority, and that the earlier MAT findings remain binding.

Summary

Two direct recruits challenged a seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors issued by the State of Maharashtra, which was quashed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) and upheld by the Supreme Court on res judicata grounds. The State issued a fresh seniority list in 1992, which the promotees again challenged; the MAT dismissed the challenge, invoking both res judicata and constructive res judicata, and also held that promotions in excess of the statutory quota were fortuitous and could not confer seniority. The Supreme Court affirmed that the earlier MAT findings were binding, that the phrase "as far as practicable" does not permit deviation from the quota, and that the certificate dated 21‑02‑1992 was irrelevant. It further held that absorbed employees from the Revenue Department could not claim seniority over earlier promotees, and that the representative‑capacity filing of the earlier petition barred re‑litigation. Consequently, both civil appeals (Nos. 7717/1994 and 6316/1997) were dismissed, leaving the seniority list as finalized in 1993 undisturbed.

Issues considered

The applicability of res judicata and constructive res judicata to the fresh challenge of the seniority list.
Whether the expression "as far as practicable" in Rule 2 of the 1971 Recruitment Rules allows deviation from the 60:40 quota.
Whether promotions in excess of the quota are to be treated as fortuitous appointments for seniority purposes.
The evidentiary value of the certificate dated 21‑02‑1992 in altering seniority rights.
Whether absorbed employees from the Revenue Department can claim seniority over earlier promoted Sales Tax Inspectors.
Whether the earlier filing in representative capacity affects the binding nature of the prior judgment.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 1 Rule 8, s. Section 11

Subjects

seniorityres judicataconstructive res judicataquota rulefortuitous appointmentpromotionMaharashtra Sales Tax Inspectorsadministrative tribunalservice law

Judgment

A MAHARASHTRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATHAN .
JI,

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND A."IR.

JA.1'/UARY 12, 2000

B [S.P. KURDlJKAR AND S.S.M. QlJADRI, JJ.)

Service Law :

Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982
C Rules 4(1) second proviso, 3(F) and 6.
Seniority-Direct .recruits vis-a-vis promotees-lnter se seniority-Res
judicata/constructive res judicata-f'rincipl~Applicability of-Two direct
recruits challenged the seniority list issued on 12.4.198~State Administrative
Tn'bunal (SAT) quashed the seniority list-Supreme Court dismissed SLP
..-
D filed by promotees, on merits-Thus SAT judgment became finaf-Fresh
seniority list issued on 28.12.1992 and finalised on 29.10.1993--Promotees
challenged this seniority list but SAT dismissed the application principally on
grounds of res judicata and constructive res judicata-However, to avoid
remand of the case, in the event the higher court came to the conclusion that
E principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata was not applicable, SAT
dismissed the case on merits also-Held: Principles of res judicata/construc-
tive res judicata applicable to the present case on the following grounds : (i)
the expression "as far as practicable" having been already construed by SAT
its judgment operates as res judicata (ii) the earlier finding is not per incuriam
and, therefore, it operates as res judicata (iii) it was open to raise the plea
F before SAT that Rules did not permit carry forward of vacancies but that
having not been raised, this plea cannot be raised in the present proceeding
as it is bamd by constructive res judicata (iv) certificate dated 21.2.1982 !Wt
produced before SAT in the earlier case and, therefore, a plea based on this
certificate is barred by constructive res judicat~SAT rightly dismissed the
G application on the grounds of res judicata and constructive res
judicata-Hence, the directions issued by SAT on merits, non
est-Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971 R.2-Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 11.

Seniority-Quota rule-Direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees-lnter se
H seniority-Promotion made for in excess of quota since direct recruits were
166
MAHARASIITRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATIIAN v. SfATE 167

not available-Some of the promotees officiated for a long time-fleld : Such A
promotees cannot be treated as regular employees so as to entitle them to
. claim seniority over direct recruits-Such promotions are only fortuitous/tem-
porary/ad hoc or stop-gap arrangement-Contention of the promotees that the
direct recruits were schooling and/or not born in the cadre when they were
promoted and, there/ore, they will suffer hardship if they are pushed down,
rejecte~As there is a patent violation of quota rule promotees who remained
B
in the office for all these years cannot take advantage of the situation.

Seniority-Regular employees vis-a-vis absorbed employee~nter se
seniority-Sales Tax Inspectors-(STls)-Some employees of Sales Tax
Department promoted as STls between 1976 and 1980-Some employees ·C
working as senior clerks in Revenue Department absorbed in Sales Tax
Department-Such absorbed employees promoted as ST/s during 1981 and
afterwards-Held: The post of ST/s is a selection post-Absorbed employees
are entitled to benefit of service rendered in their parent department-But they
cannot claim seniority as ST/s over those who were already promoted as ST!s
prior to their absorptio~ence, High Court rightly quashed the provisional D
seniority list which included such absorbed employees.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 8.

Suit in representative capacity-Administrative Tribunal held that the
application filed by two direct recruits in an earlier case challenging the E
seniority list was in a representative capacity-Such finding not specifically
challenged before Supreme Court-However, contention raised that the earlier
finding by Tribunal did not operate as res judicata since application was filed
without obtaining leave under 0.1 R.8 CPC-Held: Such contention rejected
since there is no reason to doubt the finding of the Tribunaf-l'ractice and F
Procedure.
0
Word!' and Phrases :

"As far as practicable''-Meaning of-In the context of R. 2(a) of the
Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971. G
"Fortuitous appointment''-Meaning of-Jn the context of R. 3(F) of the
Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1982.

In Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 1994 the respondent-State issued a
seniority list on U.4.1989 under the Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A Recruitment Rules, 1971 in respect of Sales Tax Inspectors (STls) from
two sources, namely, direct recruits and by promotion in the ratio of 60 :
40 as far as practicable. Two direct recruits filed an application before the
State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) challenging this seniority list, which
was quashed. The SLP filed by the promotees against the aforesaid
B decision was dismissed by this Court on merits. The SAT judgment,
therefore, became final.

Pursuant to the SAT judgment a fresh seniority list was issued on
28.12.1992 and finalised on 29.10.1993. The appellants· promotees filed an
application before the SAT challenging this seniority list. But the SAT
C dismissed the application on the grounds that it was barred by res judicata
and constructive rel judicata. However, the SAT gave the finding on merits
also in order to avoid the remand in the event the higher court came to
-
the conclusion that the application was not barred by res judicata or
constructive res judicata.

D
In Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997 the dispute pertained to the deter-
mination of seniority of STis who were promoted (on absorption) from two
different sources, namely, Revenue Department and Sales Tax Depart·
ment. The dispute in this civil appeal was confined to inter se seniority of
promotees from these two sources. The post of STI was a selection post.
E Some employees of the Sales Tax Department were promoted as STls
between 1976 and 1980. Some employees wor!ting as senior clerks in the
Revenue Department were absorbed in the Sales Tax Department in terms
of an order dated 12.12.1980. These employees were given the benefit of
service rendered on equivalent posts in the Revenue Department and were
p promoted as STis during 1981 and afterwards. The appellant-State pub-
lished a provisional s~niority list in which the absorbed employees were
also included. This seniority list was challengecj, by the respondents in a
writ petition filed before the High Court on the ground that on the date
when these employees were absorbed the respondents were already
promoted as STls and, therefore, the provisional seniority list was not only
G erroneous but also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The
High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the seniority list.

On behalf of the appellant-promotees it was contended that accord-
ing to a certificate dated 21.2.1992 many posts of STls were filled up by
H promotion since no direct recruits were available; that the earlier finding
MAHARASHfRA VIKRIKARKARAMCHARISA\IGATHANv. STATE 169

-- by SAT was per incuriam; that the two direct recruits filed the application
b:fore the SAT in a representative capacity without obtaining leave under
· Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and, therefore, the earlier
A

finding by SAT did not operate as res judicata; that the Rules did not
permit carrying forward of the vacancies; that some of the appellant-
promotees had officiated for more than 17 years when the direct recruits
were either schooling and/or not born in the cadre and, therefore, it would
B
cause great hardship to the appellants if they were pushed down.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD: (In Civil Appeal No. 7717of1994)
c
1.1. The expression "as far as prdcticable" occurring in Rule 2 of the
Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971 has already
been.construed by the State Administn1tive Tribunal (SAT) in the applica·
tion filed by the two direct recruits and, therefore, the SAT rightly nega-
tived the contention raised by the appellant-promotees on the ground of D
res judicata. (184-A; Fl

1.2. The finding recorded by the SAT in its judgment is not per
incuriam and, therefore, it oper.ites as res judicata. It was open to the
appellant·promotees to raise the plea before the SAT that the Rules did
not permit carrying forward uf vacaincits and that having been not done,
E
such a contention in the present case is barred by the principles of
cot.'lstructive res judicata. The certificate dated 21.2.1992 was not produced
w~en the earlier case was pending before the SAT and, therefore, raising
of a plea based on this certificate in the present proceedings is barred by
the principles of constructive res judicata. Therefore, the SAT rightly F
·dismissed tile application on tile grounds of res judicata and constructive
res judicata. Hence, the directions issued by the SAT on merits will be non
est. [184-F-G; 185-B; 186-D-E; 187-E-F]

N.K Chauhan v.State of Gujarat, [1977] l SCC 308 and Direct Recrnit
Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra, [1990] 2 G
sec 715, relied on.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gumam Kaur, (1989] 1 SCC 101;
Narender Chadha v. Union of India, (19861 2 SCC 157 and AR. Antulay v.
R.S. Nayak, [1988) 2 sec 602, held inapplicable. H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A 2.1. The certificate dated 21.2.1992 does not advance the case of
the appellants. On the contrary, this certificate unmistakably indicates
that the promotfons given to the promotees in excess of their quota for
the respective unit year were treated as temporary promotions. No
document is produced to indicate that the State Government has ever
B talten any decision much less the conscious decision in accordance with
law to treat the promotions of these promotees (in excess of the quota)
on regular basis. In the absence of any such decision on the part of the
Government, it would be wrong to assert that such promotions were on
regular basis and not fortuitous/temporary/ad hoc or stop-gap arran-
C gement. This certificate, therefore, is of no consequence. (186-B-D]

2.2. The SAT in the earlier application filed by the two direct recruits
had held that they had sued in a representative capacity. Such a finding
was not specifically challenged in the present appeal. It is, therefore, not
D possible to accept the contention of the appellants that the earlier finding
did not operate as res judicata since no leave under Order 1 Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure to file the application in a representative capacity
. was obtained by the direct recruits. Moreover, there is no reason to doubt
the findings of the Tribunal in this behalf. (186-G; 187-B]

E 2.3. It is not possible to accept the promotees' contention that some
of them had officii:.ted for more than 17 years when some of the direct
recruits were either schooling and/or not born in the cadre and, therefore,
they will sufier hardship if they were pushed down. If there is patent
violation of the quota rule, the result must follow and the appellants who
F remained in the of.ice for all these years cannot take advantage of the
situation. [187-C-D]

(In Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997)

G 1. The employees who were absorbed in the Sales Tax Department
from the Revenue Department are entitled to the benefit of service
rendered in their parent department. But they are not entitled to claim
seniority as Sales Tax Inspectors over those who were already promoted
prior to their promotion. Hence, the High Court rightly quashed the
H provisional seniority list. [190-F-H; 191-A; 192-E]
MAHARASHI'RA VlijOlUKAR KARAMCHARl SANliATIIAN "·STAIB [S.P. KURDUKARJ.] 171

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7717 of A
1994 Etc. Etc.

'From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.94 of the Maharashtra
Administrative . Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 .
'•·

Harish N. Salve, V.A. Mohta, P.P. Rao, G.B. Sathe, M.S. Ganesh, B
A.K. Ganguli, K.K. Singhvi, S.P. Sharm~, Dr. Joseph P. Verghese (A.S.
Bhasme for State), Saiiad Hussain, R.B. Masodkar, K.L. Taneja, C.S.
Ashri, M.K.D. Namboodri, R.P. Wadhwani, L.J. Vadakara, Raju
Ramachandran, S.M. Jadhav, D.M. Nargolkar, Dr. M.P. Raju, Mukul
Mudgal, Mrs. Urmila Sirur, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Ms. Meeta Gond, Abraham
Pattiyani, S.S. Shinde, Abraham M. Pattiyani, V.K. Sidhardhan, A.M.
c
Khanwilkar, Vinay Kumar Garg, Sunil Kumar, B.N. Singhvi, Motl Lal
Hamembran, Ms. Meetha Prasad, V.B. Joshi, Dinesh P.V. and M.L. Gond
for the appearing parties.

Respondent-In-Person (N.P.) In C.A. No . .6316/97. D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.P. KURDUKAR, J. Civil Appeal No. 7717 Of 1994.

This is a third round of litigation whereby a challenge to the seniority E
list of the Sales Tax Inspectors in the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra,
was made by promotees/departmental candidates (for short 'the
promotees) against the direct recruits in respect of their placements in the
seniority list. These two civil appeals in strict sense cannot be said to be
connected involving identical questions of inter se seniority save and except
that they relate to the fixation of seniority of the Sales Tax Inspectors in F
their cadre in the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra. Civil Appeal No.
7717 of 1994 is filed by the Maharashtra Vikrikar Karamchari Sangathan,
the appellant (for short 'the promotees') assailing the legality and correct-
ness of the judgment and order dated 23rd March, 1994 passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Original Applica- G
tion No. 690-A of 1993 (for short 'O.A.'). This O.A. was filed by the
promotees challenging the correctness of the final seniority list notified and
· published on 28th December, 1992 and amended on 29th October, 1993.
This seniority list of Sales Tax Inspectors came to be prepared as on 31st
of December, 1987. To be more precise, the dispute relates to the fixation H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2C"v0] 1 S.C.R.
A of seniority of promotees and direct recruits for the block 1971 to 31st
December, 1987. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay
Bench (for short 'MAT') dismissed the O.A. principally on the ground that
the contentions raised therdn are barred by principles of res-judicata as
well as constructive res-judicata. However, with a view to avoid the remand,
B in case the higher courts hold that the 0.A. is not barred by the principles
of res-judicata or constructive res- judicata, the MAT disposed of the
controversy raised in O.A. on merits too.

2. Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997 b filed by the State of Maharashtra
impugning the judgment and order dated 23rd February, 1989 rendered by
C the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2742 of 1987. The dispute
in this civil appeal pertains to the determination of seniority of Sales Tax
Inspectors who were promoted (on absorption) from two different sources,
namely, Revenue Department and Sales Tax Department, Bombay. The
dispute thus in this civil appeal is confined to the inter-se seniority of
D promotees from these two sources.

3. We may first deal with Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 1994. The facts
which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal may be stated briefly as
under:-
E
Prior to 6th September, 1971, the recruitment to the posts of Sales
Tax Inspectors (for short 'STls') was made through three sources, (1) by
promotion from clerks, (2) by transfer from other departments and (3) by
direct recruitment Till this time, no quota was prescribed for these three
F different sources of recruitment. The seniority of all these three sets of STis
was determined pursuant to the general provisions relating to seniority
contained in the government resolution dated July 29, 1963.

4. For the first time, the State Government in exercise of powers
conferred by provisions of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, framed
G the i-ules called Maharashtra Sales Tax Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1971
(for short 'Rules 1971') which came into force w.e.f. September 6, 1971.
Suffice is to refer to Rule 2 thereof. It deals with the appointments to the
posts of Sales Tax Inspectors from two sources, namely direct recruits and
by promotion in the ratio of 60:40 as far as practicable. (Emphasis sup-
H plied).
MAHARASHTRA VlKRIKAR KARAM CHARI SANGATIIAN •· STAIB {S.P. KURDUKAR J. j 173

Rule 2 reads thus :- A
2. Appointment to the posts of Sales Tax Inspectors shall be
made either :

(a) by promotion of suitable clerks in the Sales Tax Depart-
ment, who have passed at least Part I of the Departmental Ex- B
amination prescribed for the Sales Tax Inspector or for the Higher
Clerical staff in the Sales Tax Department or who have been
exempted from passing the Departmental Examination prescribed
for Sales Tax Inspectors or for the High Clerical Staff.

Provided that the Clerks who have passed Part I of the
c
Departmental Examination for Sales Tax Inspector and who have
been promoted to the posts of Sales Tax Inspectors are required
to pass Part II of the Departmental Examination for Sales Tax
Inspector also, according to the rules made in that behall, failing D
which they shall be liable to be reverted.

The ratio of persons appointed by promotion as provided above
and by nomination as provided below shall, as far as practicable,
be 40:60. The ratio shall not apply to temporary V'dcancies not
exceeding one year which may be filled by promotion. Such promo- E
tions shall, however, be treated as stopgap promotions and will not
entitle the promotees to seniority by virtue thereof.

Note : ln the period from the date on which these rules come into
force to the date on which the results of the first Departmental F
Examination of Sales Tax Inspectors under the unified Departmen-
tal Examination Rules are declared, promotions made to the post
of Sales Tax Inspector shall be purely provisional and persons so
promoted shall be required to pass the prescribed Departmental
Examination within the prescribed period from the date the G
Departmental Examination rules come into force, failing which
they shall be liable to be reverted :

(b) by nomination, on the result of a competitive examination held
by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, from among can-
~~~ - H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A (i) possess a degree in Arts, Science, Commerce, Law or
Agricul.ture of a recognised University or any recognised
equivalent qualifications;

and

B (ii) have attained the age of 18 years and have not attained the
age of 24 years, on the frrst day of the month immediately
following the month in which the posts are advertised by the
Commission;

C Provided that the upper age limit shall be relaxed upto 30 years
in the case of persons serving in the Sales Tax Department.

Thereafter, the State of Maharashtra in exercise of powers conferred
under Artieie 309 of the Constitution of India framed the Rules for
regulating the seniority amongst government employees. The said Rules
D were called Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of Seniority) Rules,
1982 (for short 'Rules 1982'). These rules came into force 1w.e.f. June 21,
1982. Rule 4 is relevant in the present controversy and it reads thus :

"4. General Principles of Seniority : (1) Subject to the other
provisions of these rult:s, the seniority of a Government servant in
E any post, cadre or service shall ordinarily be determined on the
length of his continuous service there.

Provided that, for the purpose of computing such service, any
period of absence from the post, cadre or service due to leave,
F deputation for training or otherwise or on foreign service or
temporary officiation in any other post shall be taken into account,
if the competent authority certified that the Government servant
concerned would have continued in the said post cadre or service
during such period, had he not proceeded on leave or deputation
or been appointed temporarily to such other post.
G
Provided further that, the service, if any, rendered by him as a
result of a fortuitous appointment shall be excluded in computing
the length of service and for the purposes of seniority he shall be
deemed to have been appointed to the post in the cadre of service
H on the date on which his regular appointment is made in accord-
~HfRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHAR!SANGATllAN '·STATE (S.P. KURDUKARJ.J 175

ance with the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules. A
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (1) :

(a) the inter se st:niority of direct recruits sdected in ont: batch for
appointment to any post, cadre or service, shall be determined
according to their ranks in the order of preference arranged by B
the Commission, Selection Board or in the case of recruitment by
nomination directly made by the competent authority, the said
authority, as the case may be, if the appointment is taken up by
the person recruited within thirty days from the date of issue of
the order of appointment or within such extended period as the c
competent authority may in its discretion allow.

(b) the inter se seniority of Government servants promoted from a
Select List shall be in the same order in which their names appear
in such St:kct List. If the Select List is prepared in two parts, the
first part, containing the names of those selected unconditionally D
and the second part containing the names of those selected
provisionally. All persons included in the first part shall rank above
those included in all second part.

Provided that, if the ordt:r in which the names are arranged in E
the Sek:ct List is changed following a subsequent review of it, the
seniority of the Government servants involved shall be re-arranged
and determined afresh in conformity with their revised ranks.

(c) the seniority of a transferred Government servant vis-a-vis the
F
Government servant in the posts, cadre or service to which he is
transferred shall be determined by the competent authority with
due regard to the class and pay scale of the post, cadre or service
from which he is transferred, the length of his service therein and
the circumstances leading to his transfer.
G
(3) Where the dates of appointment in posts, cadre or service of
any two or more persons determined after assigning the
deemed dates, if necessary, are identical the person senior in
age shall be considered as senior for the purpose of deter-
mining the seniority.' H
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A Rule 3 contains several definitions and we are concerned with four defini-
tions.

3(D) "Deemed date" means the date assigned to a Government
servant in accordanct: with the provisions of Rule 5;

B 3(E) ''Direct recrnit" mt:ans, in relation to any post, cadrt: or st:rvice,
a person appointed by nomination thereto;

3{F) "fortuitous appointment' mt:ans a temporary appointment
made ptnding a rt:gular appointmt:nt in accordance with the
provisions of tht: relevant rccruitmt:nt rules;
c
3(H) "Promotee" means, in relation to any post, cadrt: or service, a
Governmt:nt servant appointed thereto by promotion from a
lower post, cadre or service;

D 5. The State of Maharashtra again in cxt:rcise of its powers conferred
by Article 309 of the Constitution of India carried out the amendments to
the Rules 1982. We may reproduce the relevant amendments to Rules 4
and 6 which read as under :

''2. In Rult: 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Regulation of
E St:niority) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter reforred to as ''the principle
rules", in sub-rult: (1) in the second proviso, after the words, "a
fortuitous appointment" the following shall bt: inst:rted, namely :-

"except in a case where the competent authority certifies that, it
was not expedient/possible or practicable to make a regular ap-
F pointment strictly in accordance with tht: ratio of recruitment as
prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules, with the brief reason
recorded therefor.''

3. xxx xxx xxx
G 4. In Rule 6 of the principle Rules, after the existing proviso, the
following proviso shall be added, namely:-

"provided further that, appointment shall not be deemed to be
fortuitous if the authority competent to make appointment certified
H while preparing the annual gradation list that the temporary ap-
MAHARASHI'RA VIKRJKARXARAMCHARlSANOATHAN '·STAIB fS.P. KURDUKARJ.i 177

pointment had to be made, as candidates for regular appointment A
by nomination or as the case may be, persons fit for promotion
from the lower cadre, were not available at all or in adequate
numbers."

6. This is how the relevant rules wen: holding the field when the B
impugned seniority list as amended came to be published in the year 1992
and 1993. It is clear from the certificate of the Addi. Commissioner of Sales
Tax dated 21st February, 1992 (Ex.K) that from 6th September, 1971 to
31st December, 1987, total 1750 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors became
vacant. l.Jnder the Recruitment Rules, 1050 posts for the direct recruits
were required to be filled in accordance with· the ratio of 60:40. However, C
during the said period, only 346 direct recruits were available and they
were appointed. Balance of 704 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors came to be
filled by temporary promotions because no candidates were available for
direct recruitment for the said posts. From this certificate, it is amply clear
that between 6th of September, 1971 and 31st December, 1987, the quota D
rule was not observed and the departmental candidates came to be
promoted as Sales Tax Inspectors beyond their prescribed quota of 403.
Obviously, these promotions were treated by the Government of
Maharashtra as temporary promotions. The principle issue which needs to
be considered in this appeal is how to determine the seniority amongst the
promotees and direct recruits who were promoted and appointed as STls E
during this block. The contention raised on behalf of the promotces
(appellants) is that the quota rule was broken down and as a result thereof,
the promotces were required to be appointed in view of the exigencies of
service and if so appointed, their promotions cannot be termed as for-
tuitous/temporary/ad hoc and that they will be entitled to earn the seniority p
and placement in the impugned seniority list from the date they were so'
promoted and working as STls. As against this, the contention raised on
behalf of the direct recruits was that the promotees who wt:re
promoted/appointed in the vacancies falling in the quota of dirt:ct recruits
(60%), such promotions of the promotecs were fortuitous in excess of their
quota and notwithstanding that they were so appointed and working as G
STls in the vacancies reserved for direct recruits as per the quota rule, they
cannot get the seniority from the date of promotion or officiation and that
they will get their placement in the seniority list in accordance with their
quota i.e. 40% and until they are acc0mmodated in their quota (40%) as
regular promotees, their date of promotion or officiation will not be H
178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.

A counted for the purposes of fixing their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits.
The quota rule was never broken down. The direct recruits further prayed
that the present O.A. is barred by principles of res judicata as also the
constructive res judicata by virtue of the judgment dated 3rd September,
1992 rendered by MAT in T.P. No. 822 of 1991. The direct recruits,
B therefore, prayed that present O.A. has no substance and tht: same be
dismissed.

7. It would be necessary to refer to the earlier proceedings which
were finally disposed of by the MAT, Bombay Bench, and this Court
upheld the said judgment while dismissing the SLP filed by
C promotees/departmental candidates.

8. The first proceeding in point of time was filed by the promotees
bearing Writ petition No. 2742 of 1987 challenging the seniority list of the
STls in Bombay High Court wherein the direct recruits were also arrayed
D as respondents. The Bombay High Court vide its judgment and order dated
23rd February, 1989 quashed the seniority list and directed the concerned
authority to prepare a fresh seniority list.

9. Following the directions of the Bombay High Court in its order
dated 23rd February, 1989, a fresh seniority list was prepared and issued
E on 12th April, 1989. The direct recruits were not satisfied with this seniority
list prepared and issued on 12th April, 1989 as according to them, the same
was prepared in contravention of the Statutory Rules 1971, framed by the
State of Maharashtra in the years 1971, 1982 and 1988. To vindicate their
-
grievances in respect of their erroneous placement in the seniority list
p issued on 12th April, 1989, two direct recruits petitioned the State of
Maharashtra bearing Writ Petition No. 4852 of 1989 to which some of the
promotees were also impleaded as respondents. Some similarly situated
promotees filed the intervention application which was allowed. Writ Peti-
tion No. 4852of1989 was then transferred to the MAT, Bombay Bench in
view of the constitution of the MAT. It came to be listed as T .P. No. 822
G of 1991. The State of Maharashtra as well as the promotees filed their
responses to the transferred petition. The State of Maharashtra pleaded
that the seniority list issued on 12th April, 1989 was in accordance with the
statutory rules and the promotions given to the promotees in excess of their
quota were required to be treated as fortuitous promotions and since they
H were not regularly appointed as STis, they will be pushed down below the
MAHARASIITRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARI SANGATilAN '· STAIE [S.P. KURDUKAR J.; 17<f

direct recruits for the respective unit years of appointments in accordance A
with quota rule. According to the State of Maharashtra, the promotions
given to the promotees in· excess of quota were temporary/ad hoc and oc
stop-gap arrangement without reckoning the period of their officiation as
STls for the purposes of fixing their seniority.

10. The promotees strongly relied upon circular issued by the govern- B
ment on 2nd September, 1989 regarding the seniority of the Sales Tax
Inspectors with reference to the rules and principles of seniority between
the promotees and direct recruits. In addition, they also relied upon a
certificate dated 21st February, 1992 issued by the Government under the
amended seniority rules declaring promotees in excess of quota as regular c
promotees. There is a dispute as regards the correct reading and inter-
pretation of this certificate dated 21st February, 1992.

11. After hearing the parties, the MAT by its detailed reasoned order
dated 3rd September, 1992 quashed the seniority list dated 12th April, 1989
after setting/concluding the issues and directed the concerned authority to D
prepare a fresh seniority list in terms of its order as also in accordance
with the rules notified from time to time. The promotees moved this Court
in SLP (c) ...... (CC No. 18427/92), but, however, this Court on 10th
December, 1992 dismissed the same as under:-
E
"IA No. 1 for permission to file SLP is allowed. The SLP is
dismissed on merits."

12. In view of the decision of the MAT dated 3rd September, 1992
and on SLP confirmed by this Court on 10th December, 1992, a fresh
seniority list was issued on 28th December, 1992 an'd was finalised on 29th F
October, 1993. The appellants/promotees who were aggrieved by the said
seniority list filed O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 before the MAT, Bombay Bench.
The direct recruits were also made parties to this OA. MAT, Bombay
Bench, vide its impugned Judgment dated 23rd March, 1994 dismissing the
O.A. It is against this order passed by MAT, Bombay Bench, the appellants G
have filed this Civil Appeal No. 7717 of 1994.

13. The impugned judgment principally proceeded on the footing
that the contentions raised by the appellants were barred by principle of
· res judicata in view of the earlier decision of the MAT, Bombay Bench
rendered on 3rd September, 1992 whereunder the seniority list dated April H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2CCO) 1 S.C.R.
A 12, 1989 came to be quashed. The MAT then directed concerned authority
to prepare a fresh seniority list in terms of directions contained in its order
dated September 3, 1992. The MAT also considered in its impugned
judgment the merits of the claim stt up by the appdlants and while
negating the same on merits issued certain directions contained in para-
B graph 50 thereof. The MAT gave the findings on merits in order to avoid
the order of rt:mand in the event the hightr court comes to the conclusion
that the contentions raised by the appellants in O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 are
not barred by res-judicata or constructive res- judicata. Before we deal with
the rival contentions on merits, it would be appropriate to set out relevant
contentions and the findings recorded thereof by the MAT, Bombay Bench
C in its judgment dated September 3, 1992 as to whether the contentions
raised in the present proceedings are barred by res- judicata/constructive
res judicata.

14. The principle of res judicata is sought to be applied on the footing
D that the identical contentions were raised in Transfer Petition No. 822 of
1991 and, therefore, such contentions cannot be re-agitated in the present
O.A. It may be true that the appellants have got a fresh cause of action
because the seniority list was prepared in 1993 by following the decision in
Transfer Petition Case No. 822 of 1991 but it will not alter the situation in
view of the fact that identical contentions/issues were sought to be re-
E agitated in O.A. No. 690-A of 1993. All these contentions/issues were
concluded not only by the MAT Bombay Bench, but by this Court also in
SLP (C) No ....... (CC No. 18427of1992). Certainly findings on such issues
must operate as res judicata in the present proceedings otherwise the very
rule of res judicata will be defeated.
F
15. As stated earlier, Transfer Application No. 822 of 1991 (Writ
Petition No. 4852 of 1989) was filed by two direct recruits against the State
of Maharashtra, the Commissioner of Sales Tax and Rajak Daud Mapari
who was a promotee. To this O.A., four more promotees got themselves
impleaded as interv1;ners and filed their counter affidavit opposing the said
0 T.P. The contention raised on behalf of direct recruits was that the promo-
tions given to the promotees in excess of their quota as laid down in the
Rules 1971 be treated as fortuitous beyond their prescribed quota. The
appellants contended that since direct recruits were not adequately avail-
able for appointments in terms of the quota rule, the promotions wen:
H required to be given during the respective years for administrative reasons
MAHARASlfIAA VJKRIKARKARAMU!AR! SANGAfHAN '·STAIB /S.P. K.URDUKARJ.j 181

as the Sales Tax Department could not be allowed to suffer because of non A
availability of direct rt:cruits. This contention is based on the principle that
quota rule was broken down and, therefort:, the Government had to n:sort
to departure from the quota rule dut: to administrative exigencies. If such
promotions were givtn to the promotees they could not be said to be
fortuitous/ad hoc/temporary or stop-gap arrangement. On this topic both
the parties relied upon the Rules 1971, the Rules 1982 and various
B
decisions of this Court. The MAT after analysing the relevant rules and
the decisions of this Court came to the following conclusions :

1. It cannot be h::ld that the quota rule has not been followed
continuously for number of years. C
2. 1971 quota rule has not been broken down.

3. Inter se seniority is to be guided by quota rule.

4. It is reasonable to implement the principles of pushing down. D
5. Promotions in excess of quota are liable to be fortuitous.

6. Promotions in excess of quota in the year of promotion will
not get st:niority in that year.
E
7. Promotees in excess of quota will get seniority in subsequent
year when they can get place in their quota (pushing down
principle).

8. Year is taken as unit for deciding the quota.
F
16. The MAT while coming to the above conclusions noticed that (1)
there was no matt:rial on record to indicate that the quota rule was broken
down and, therefore, the promotions given to the promotees in excess of
quota rule will havt: to be treated as regular promotions and not being
fortuitous/ad hoc/temporary/stop-gap arrangement. The MAT also found
that the government had failed to show that despite their sincere efforts, G
they could not adhere to the quota rule because of non-availability of
eligible candidates for direct recruitment. (2) The words "as far as prac-
ticable" appearing in Rule 2 of Rules 1971 could not be equated with
impossible and for that the MAT had reforred to the number of vacancies
that fell to the share of direct recruits. It was noticed that during the period H
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] l S.C.R.
A from 6th September, 1971 to 31st December, 1987, 1050 posts fell to the
share of direct recruits as per the quota rule, but, however, only 346 direct
recruits were appointed. Except for the year when recruitment was not
permitted by the government for the rest of the years tither the n:quisitions
were not sent on time or the number of candidates for direct recruits was
B restricted by the MPSC. For some years, no requisitions were sent to
MPSC. (3) No material was produced on record to indicate that govern-
ment ever took a conscious decision to deviate from the quota rule as it
was broken down and, therefore, promotees were required to be promoted
in excess of their quota. The number of posts for direct recruits falling
vacant were 704 for the said block. (4) The Government had taken no
C active steps in the direction of direct recruitment. The promotions given to
the promotees in excess of their quota were either fortuitous/ad hoc/tem-
porary or stop-gap arrangement and, thtrefore, notwithstanding that such
promotees were officiating for long period, they will have to be pushed
down in the seniority list below the direct recruits for the respective year/s
D of recruitment.
Consistent with these findings, the MAT concluded thus :

''It has not been explained by the respondents whether the seniority
list published by the Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, vide his
E letter dated 12th April, 1989 is in accordance with the instructions
issued by the Government vide Government letter dated 2nd
September, 1989. Therefore, the Government will have to forthwith
cancel the impugned seniority list published on 12th April, 1989
and to prepare a fresh seniority list of the Sales Tax Inspectors in
accordance with the law. It is needless to say that the appointments
F
made in excess of the quota will have to be treated as fortuitous.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to revise the seniority list
. and republish it in accordance with the law laid down by the
Supn:me Court as well as the letter No. VIKRANT -
1087/41/87/Administration-7 datt:d 2nd September, 1989 addressed
G to Additional Commissioner, Sales Tax, Bombay, within a period
of six months, from the date of this order."

17. As stated earlier, promo tees challenged this order in SLP bearing
CC No. 18427 of 1992 and the same came to be dismissed on December
H 10, 1992. In view of the finality attained by the judgment and order dated
MAHARASHTRA VIKRIJ<AR KARAMC'HARI SANCiAfHAN " ''TAIE {S.P. KURDUKAR J, J 183

September 3, 1992 passed by the MAT Bombay Bench, the Government A
issued a fresh seniority list on December 28, 1992 which was finalised on
October 29, 1993. In this seniority list, the promotees were pushed down
below the direct recruits as per the directions contained in the judgement
of the l'vlAT dated September 3, 1992. It is this seniority list which was
challenged by the appellants before the MAT Bombay Bench, in Original
Application No. 690-A of 1993. The MAT Bombay Bench, vide its judg-
B
ment and order dated 23rd March, 1994 dismissed the said O.A.

18. Mr. Ganguly, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in support
of this appeal urged that the phrase used in Rule 2 ''as far as practicable"
proves beyond any pale of doubt that there is no fix quota between C
promotees and nominees and the said explanation ''as far as practicable"
cannot be given a restrictive interpretation and it cannot be gainsaid that
no definite quota exists between the promotees and nominees and any
departure thereof would amount to breach of quota rule. In support of this
submission, he drew support from the decision of this Court in Direct D
Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra
and Others, [1990] 2 SCC 715, wherein the words "as far as practicable"
have been interpreted as under :-

''The other important feature was that the proviso fixing the ratio,
far from being imperative, permitted the State Government to E
exercise its discretion according to the demand of the exigencies,
by using the expression "as far as practicable". The case of the
appellants is that the said expression was inserted in the proviso
with the object of avoiding fractions in arithmetical calculations of
number of posts available to the two groups, and for no other F
purpose. We do not see any reason to so restrict the scope and
meaning of the expression "as far as practicable". A similar expres-
sion in identical terms used in certain other rules came up for
consideration in N.K Chauhan v. State of Gujarat and it was held
that if it became non-feasible and impracticable for the State to
fill up the requisite quota by direct recruits after making a serious G
efforts to do so, it was free to fill the posts by promotions of suitable
hands, if the filling up of the vacancies was administratively neces-
sary and could not wait. Similar is the position here, and the Rule
1 of the 1960 Rules must be held to be realistic and flexible, true
to lift: rather than abstractly absolute." H
184 SUPREME COCRT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
.A 19. While construing the phrase "as far as practicable", in the manner
suggested by the respondents, it must be indicatt:d that serious efforts were
made with all promptness on the part of the State to secure the hands to
fill up the requin:d number of vacancies from the open market.

20. This submi&sion was also raist.:d in Transft:r Petition No. 822 of
B 1991 and while construing the said expression, MAT Bombay Bench,
reforred to the judgment in N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, [1977) 1 SCC
308 and held that having regard to tht: facts and circumstances of tht: case
and in particular the inaction on the part of the State Gove;:rnment in
recruiting the dirt:ct recruits during this bJ.ock, it could not be said that the
C State in tune with the mandate of the rule had made st:rious efforts to
secure the hands to fill up the required number of vacancies from tht: opt:n
market. The Tribunal in paragraph 7 has concluded :

"According to him betwet:n tht: pt:riod 6th September, 1971 to 31st
Dect:mbcr, 1987, 2561 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors have been
D filled, out of which only 335 posts have gone to direct recruits and
the remaining 2226 have gone to promotees and thus 1202
promotecs have been promoted in t:xcess of quota. Tht: total
percentage of direct recruitment would come hardly to 13% as
against the 60% described in Rule 2 of Maharashtra Sales Tax
E Im;pectors (Recruitment) Rules, 1971."

21. In view of these findings, a similar contention sought to bt: raised
in the present proceedings cannot be entertained and the Tribunal, in our
opinion, has rightly negatived the said contention on the ground of res
judicata. An equally unsustainable contention was raised on behalf of the
F appellant that the aforesaid finding is per incuriam and as such the prin-
ciple of res judicata will have no application. Reliance was placed on the
decision of this Court in Direct Recrnit Class II Engineering Officers' As-
sociation v. State of Maharashtra and Others, [1990) 2 SCC 715, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi v. Gumam Kaur, [1989) 1 SCC 101 and A.R. Antulay
G v. R.S. Nayak and Another, [1988] 2 SCC 602. We wonder how this
contention can be accepted in view of the specific finding recorded by the
MAT in its judgment dated September 3, 1992 which is quoted hert:in
above. This submission cannot be sustained and hence rejected.

22. It was tht:n contended on behalf of the appellants that neither the
H recruitment rules of 1971 nor the seniority rules of 1982 providt:d for
MAHARASHTRA V!KRIKAR KARAMCHARI SAN(;ATHAN'· STAIB [S.P. KURDUKAR J.] 185

carrying forward the vacancies falling in either category. In the absence of A
such rule which specifically provide for carrying forward the vacancies
falling in either category, no such carry forward rult: could be implied
either in Recruitment Rules or in the Seniority Rules. This contention need
not detain us any longer because such a contention was available to the
appellants in the earlier proceedings, namely, Transfer Petition No. 822 of
1991 and the same was not put in issue. That not having been done, it must
B
follow that such a contention is barred by principle of constructive res
judicata. Neither the contesting respondents nor the appellants ever raised
this contention at any stage of the proceedings in Transfer Petition No. 822
of 1991. It would, therefore, be too late to raise such a contention when
the seniority list has been finalised pursuant to the judgment of the MAT c
Bombay Bench in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991. The reliance placed
on behalf of the appellants on the decision of this Court in Narender
Chadha and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1986] 2 SCC 157,
therefore, does not advance the case of the appellants.

23. It was then contended on behalf of the appellants that in the year
D
1988, the Recruitment Rules were amended and as per the amended rules,
cases where appointments are not made strictly in accordance with the
ratio of recruitment as prescribed in the Rules 1971, such appointments
will not be fortuitous appointments if the competent authority certified that
it was not expedient/possible or practicable to make a regular appointment E
strictly in accordance with the ratio. In support o( this submission, reliwice
was placed on the certificate dated 21st February, 1992 issued by the
Competent Authority in terms of the amended Rules. The legality and
correctness of the said certificate, counsel urged, cannot be challenged.
The certificate reads thus :
F
"In accordance with the said Rules dated 23rd September, 1988, it
is hereby certified that from 6th September, 1971 to 31st Decem-
ber, 1987, total 1750 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors became vacant.
Under the recruitment rules, 1050 posts, for Direct recruits were
required to be filled in according to the ratio of 60:40. However, G
during the said period only 346 direct recruits were available and
they were appointed. Balance of 704 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors
w be filled in by temporary promotions because no candidates were
available for direct recruitment for posts of Sales Tax Inspectors."
(Emphasis supplied) H
186 SUPRFME COURT REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A 24. We fail to understand how, on the face of finding noted above,
this certificate would advance the case of the appellants. Further the
certificate recites that the balance of 704 posts of Sales Tax Inspectors ''to
be filled in by tt;mporary promotions" because no candidates were available
for direct recruitment for the post of Sales Tax Inspectors. On tht: contrary,
B this certificate unmistakably indicates that although it was issued on 21st
February, 1992, the promotions given to the promott:es in excess of their
quota for the respective unit years wen: treated as temporary promotions.
No document is brought to our notice to indicate that the Government of
Maharashtra has ever taken any decision much less the conscious decision
in accordance with law to treat the promotions of these promotees (in
C excess of the quota) on regular basis. In the absence of any such decision
on the part of the Government, it would be wrong to assert that such
promotions were on regular basis and not fortuitous/temporary/ad hoc or
stop-gap arrangement. This certificate, therefore, is of no consequence.
This certificate was issued on 21st February, 1992 when the Transfer
D Petition No. 822 of 1991 was pending before the MAT when it rendered
its judgment on September 3, 1992. It does not appear that either of the
parties ever produced the same in the earlier proceedings. The respon-
dents were therefore justified in contending that this issue cannot be
agitated in the present proceedings as it is barred under the principle of
constructive res judicata. Even on merits of this certificate, we have already
E indicated that the appellant cannot draw any support therefrom to contend
that the promotions were on regular hasis. It was contended by Mr. K.K.
Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that this
certificate was issued by the Addi. Commissioner of Sales Tax after the
service of notices in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991. Of course, there is
F no prohibition/bar as such but, this would only indicate an afterthought
attempt to lend support to the appellants. This contention must also stand
rejected.

25. It was then contended by Mr. Ganguly that the respondents 3 and
G 4 in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 were not sued in a representative
capacity on behalf of all the promokes. No leave under Order 1 Rule ll
CPC was obtained by the petitioners therein (direct recruits). ln view of
this relevant crrcumstances, at the mo~t, it would be an inter partis; ;dgment
and would not bind the appellants save and except the respP.:tdents Nos. 3
H and 4. This submission was strongly opposed on behalf of the non-official
MAHARASHTRA VIKRIKAR KARAMCHARl SANUATllAN "·STAIB [S.P. KURDUKARJ.[ 187

respondents. It was contended by Mr. Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel A
that the petitioners in T.P. Case No. 822 of 1991 sued the respondent Nos.
3 and 4 in a representative capacity and, therefore, the law laid down by
the MAT Bombay Bench in Transfer Petition No. 822 of 1991 must bind
all the promokes who are similarly situated. This contention raised on
behalf of appellants was negatived by the MAT in its impugned judgment B
and held that the said Transfer Petition by the direct recruits was in the
represcntative capacity. No such specific contention appears to have been
taken up in the present civil appeal. We see no reason to doubt the findings
of the Tribunal in this behalf which is supported by Mr. Singhvi.

26. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that some of C
the appellants have put in more than 17 years of service when few of the
direct recruits were either schooling and/or not born in the cadre. If the
appellants were to be pushed down, it will cause a great hardship to them.
We are unable to subscribe to this contention because if there is patent
violation of the quota rule, the result must follow and the appellants who D
remained in the office for all these years cannot take the advantage of this
situation. This submission is, therefore, devoid of any substance.

27. Thus, we concur with the findings recorded by the MAT on the
iswe of res judicata and consequently, the O.A. No. 690-A of 1993 will have E
to be dismisst:d on this ground alom: for the reasons rewrdcd herein
above. Wc accordingly do so. If this be so, the findings of the MAT in the
impugned judgment on merits and certain directions issued therein and in
particular para 50 would be of no consequence. Accordingly, any such
direction in the operative portion of the impugned judgment based on para
50 will be non est. Principle of pushing down will have to be adhered to so F
long as the Rules of 1971 and Rules of 1982 as interpreted by MAT and
this Court hold the field. The seniority of such pushed down STis vis-a-vis
the direct recruits appointed after 31st December, 1987 is left open as it
was not the subject matter of O.A. Consequently, challenge to the im-
pugned seniority lists issued on 28th December, 1992 and finalised on 29th G
October, 1993 as on 31st December, 1987 must fail. We must make it clear
that subj eel matter of challenge before the MAT was in respect of im-
pugned seniority list issued on December 28, 1992 and final seniority list
issued on October 29, 1993. It is expressly made clear that this judgment
is confined to the seniority list as on 31st December, 1987 and no more. H
188 SUPREME COLRT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.

A 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal c:
and the same is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties are
directed to bear their own costs.

IA. No. ! of 1997 & IA. No. 8 of 1998.

B In view of our order in the main appeal, I.A. No. 7 of 1997 and I.A.
No. 8 of 1998 are allowed.

Civil Appeal No. 6316 of 1997

C This Civil Appea' by Special Leave is filed by the State of
Maharashtra challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and
order dated February 23, L989 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2742 of 1987. This writ petition was filed
by the first respondent Vasant Krishnaji Chavan, the Sales Tax Inspector
D (for short 'STI') on behalf of himself and other similarly situated STis who
were pr?moted to the posts of STls prior to September 1, 1980. To this
writ petition, State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sales Tax
Maharashtra State along with other 35 respondents were arrayed as
respondents.

E The chalknge in this writ petition was to the provisional st:niority list
of STis as on April 1, 1984 issued by the Government of Maharashtra on
April 28, 1987. It is this provisional seniority list which was quashed by the
High Court by this impugned order and the State Government was directed
to prepare a fresh seniority list of STis in accordance with the directions
p contained therein.

A few facts leadini~ to the present proceedings are as under :

Prior to April 1974, the staffing pattern amongst Class III employees
in the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State was (1) Clerk (2) Sales
G Tax Inspectors and (3) Selection Grade Inspectors. Prior to the said date,
the post of Clerk was divided into Junior Clerk and Senior Clerk. The posts
of STis are filled up by promotion as well as nomination in equal ratio.
Promotion to the STI from the caclre of Clerk was made from the suitable
candidates on the basis of the certificate issued by the Select Committee
H about his suitability. The post of Sales Tax Inspector is a selection post.
MAHARASHI'RA VlKRIKAR KARAM CHARI SANGATilAN •· STATB {S.P. KURDUKAR J.j 189

Earlier, the work of recovery of sale tax was entruskd to the Revenue A
Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The Government of
Maharashtra vide their Resolutions passed in 1976 and 1978 decided to
transfer the said work to the Sales Tax Department and accordingly in the
year 1980, they implemented the said decision. Resultantly, 462 posts in the
Revenue Department for the recovery of sale tax dues were abolished and
equal number of posts were created on the establishment of Sales Tax
B
Department. A question arose as to how to equate these posts with various
corresponding posts in the Sales Tax Department in terms of the Govern-
ment resolution dated September 25, 1978. The posts were equated as
under:
c
The post of Aval Karkun/Senior Clerk in the service of Revenue
Department was equated with the post of Senior Clerk in the Saks Tax
Department as the scale for both these posts was identical i.e. Rs. 335-15-
500-20-580-BB-20-680.

Consistent with this Government Resolution, the employees in the D
Revenue Department came to be absorbed in the Sales Tax Department
permitting them to exercise the option in this behalf. While determining
the seniority of such absorbed employees vis-a-vis the employees in the
Sales Tax Department working on the post of Senior Clerks, the Govern-
ment of Maharashtra, Finance Department by Resolution dated June 18,
E
1980 determined the norms of fixation of the seniority and it reads thU& ·

"So far as terms and conditions regarding fDllition of seniority are
concerned, the seniority of the revenue staff in the post of absorp-
tion should be fixed from the date from which such persons are
working regularly in the equated posts prior to their absorption, F
for all purposes, including promotions, confirmation, etc. The total
length of service in the equivalent posts in the Revenue Depart-
ment in which a person was working regularly prior to absorption
should be taken into account for fixation of seniority in the post
of absorption."
G
36 employees from the Revenue Department came to be absorbed
in the Sales Tax Department in terms of the order dated December 12,
1980. The said order also recites that the seniority of the Revenue staff in
· the post of absorption will be separately fixed from the date from which
such persons were working regularly in the equated posts prior to their H
190 SUPREMF COVK: REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A absorption for all purposes inclucling promotions, confirmations, etc. These
36 employees who were absorbed in the Sales Tax Department were
holding the post~ of Senior Clerk/Aval Karkun, Aval Karkun, Entertain-
ment Duty Inspectors etc. in the Revenue Department and since their scale
was found tu be equivalent to the Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Depart-
B ment, they were absorbed in the cadre of Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax
Department. These employees are the r~spondents at serial "los. 2 to 36
in this appeal.

The respondents herein (the writ petitioners) and other similarly
situated clerks and Senior Clerks who were working in the Sales Tax
C Department were promoted from October 15, 1976 onwards to the posts
of STis against regular vacancit.:s. Respondents 2 to 36 who were absorbed
from the Revenul: Department in the Sales Tax Department in the cadre
of Senior Clerk were also promoted to the post of Sales Tax Inspectors in
August, 1981. The total number of Clerks and Senior Clerks working in the
D Sales Tax Department came to be promoted from October 15, 1976, were
about 200 in number. The seniority list of the Senior Clerks of Sales Tax
Department as on September 1, 1980 wa~ prepared and published on May
15, 1982 by the Government of Maharashtra wherein respondents 2 to 36
herein were included. From the provisional seniority list so published, it
appears that such of the Clerks/Senior Clerks working in the Sales Tax
E Departm.:nt and promoted prior to Se:1temb.:r l, 1980 were not included
in the seniori(y list. The Sab. Tax Depi:lltment issued a cJrcular ~nclosing
the list of persons in the Sales Tax Department who were promoted from
the post of Senior Clerks between 1980 and 1982.

F From the material placed on record, it is noticed that the employees
who were initially working in the Revenm: Department and were absorbed
in the Sales Tax Department were making representations to the State
Government to reckon their seniority in the cadre of STis by taking into
account their service/seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk in their parent
department. The Government of Maharashtra, however, published the
G provisional seniority list on April 28, 1987 whereby respondents 2 to 36
herein were included in the said provisional seniority list. It is this
provisional seniority list which was challenged by the first respondent on
behalf of himself and similarly situated STis who were promoted between
1976 and 1980. The first respondent pleaded that on the date when the
H respondents 2 to 36 were absorbed, the first respondent and other similarly
MAHARASHTRA VJI<RlKARKARAMCHAR!SANGAlliAN '· SfATE!S.P. K.URDUKARJ.J 191

situated persons were already promoted as STis <1.nd, therefore, the A
provi&ional seniority list was not only erroneous but also violative of AI-
ticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The appd1ants herein and also the respondents 2 to 36 contested the
claim of the first respondent on the ground that in view of the decision of
the Government to absorb the Senior Clerks/Aval Karkuns, Aval Karkuns, B
Entertainment Duty Inspectors etc. on the equivalent posts in the cadre of
Senior Clerk in the Sales Tax Department, they are entitled to reckon their
seniority in the parent department as they were absorbed along with their
seniority. It was, therefore, necessary to prepare a common seniority list of
the Clerk/Senior Clerks of the Sales Tax Department as well as the ab- c
sorbed employees from the Revenue Department. The promotions to the
post of STis be governed by the seniority subject to other rules, regulations
and government orders. The provisional seniority list prepared by the State
of Maharashtra suffers from no infirmity and the writ petition be dismissed.

D
The learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court after con-
sidering the rival contentions found that the provisional seniority list pub-
lished by the Government of Maharashtra on April 28, 1987 is contrary to
law and the same cannot be sustained. The High Court opined that the
post of Sales Tax Inspector being a selt:ction post and unless the Select
Committee finds the Senior Clerk suitable, no promotion to such selection E
post could be madt. The first respondent and other similarly situated
persons were selected by the Select Committee and came to be promoted
to the STls from October 15, 1976 onwards. The absorbed employees from
the Revenue Department might be entitled for appropriate placements in
the seniority list of Clerks and Senior Clerks in the Sales Tax Department p
but, however, it cannot be ignored that such absorbed employees came to
be promoted as STis much after the respondent No. 1 and other similarly
situated persons were promoted. As stated earlier, the first respondent and
other similarly situated persons were promoted between 1976 and 1980
whereas respondent Nos. 2 to 36 were selected by the Select Committee
and came to be promoted in the year 1981 and thereafter. The Government G
Resolution dated June 18, 1980 specifically recites that the seniority of the
absorbed employees should be fixed in the equated post i.e. in the present
case in the cadre of Senior Clerk. The Resolution nowhere provides that
seniority can have any effect while determining the seniority in the higher
cadre of Sales Tax Inspector. The effect of the impugned provisional H
192 SL'PREME COUR'!' REPORTS [2000] 1 S.C.R.
A seniority list dattd April 28, 1987 would be that the respondent Nos. 2 to
36 who were absorbed personnel and who Wt!re promot<:d as the Saks Tax
Inspectors after 1981 would bt! senior to thost! STis like the first respon-
drnt and other similarly situated persons who wert! promoted afta sdec-
tion prior to Seph:mber, 1980. It was, therefore, an error on tht! part of the
B Government to ignore the date of selection and appointment of the first
respondent and other similarly situatt:d ~mployees to the post of STis and
treat them as junior to respondent Nrn,. 2 to 36 who were selected sub-
seqm:ntly. If such course is followed, tht! action of the Government of
Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sales Tax would be violative of
Articles 14 and lo of the Constitution. The Division Bench accordingly set
C aside the impugned provisional seniority list and directed the Government
of Maharashtra to prepare fresh seniority list in accordance with the
directions contained in the impugned judgment.

Mr. Sathe, the learned Advocate appearing for the State of
Maharashtra took us through the impugned judgment as wdl as the
D relevant documents on record but was unable to persuade us to take a
different view than the one taken by the High Court. As indicated earlier,
the respondent No. 1 and other similarly situated persons were selected by
the Sdect Committee and came to be promoted between 1976 and 1980
whereas the respondent Nos. 2 to 36 were selected by the Select Committee
E and came to be promoted in 1981 and then:aftec If this be so, in our
opinion, the provisional seniority list has been rightly quashed by the High
Court. Thus, the appeal is devoid of any substance.

In the resu1t, the appeal to stand dismissed with costs.

v.s.s. Appeals dismissed and
Petitions allowed.