PETITIONER:
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/1999
BENCH:
K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK, & M. JAGANNADHA RAO.
JUDGMENT
M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.
We have before us writ petition - W.P. 651 of
1997 and certain Interlocutory Applications bearing
Nos.IA 4, 6 to 8 filed in an earlier Writ Petition
No.306 of 1988. The said W.P. No.306 of 1988 was
disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated
22.11.1996 All India Federation of Central Excise
vs. Union of India [1997 (1) SCC 520]. Aggrieved
by certain subsequent events, various parties have
filed the writ petitions and I.As.
For the purpose of appreciating the disputes
in these matters, it is necessary to set out the
following facts:
The feeder categories for promotion to the
posts in Group A services constituting the Indian
Customs and Central Excise (Group A) Service are:
(a) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group B
(which consists of all promotees from lower cadres;
(b) Superintendents of Customs (P) Group B
(again all promotees from lower cadres); and
(c) (i) Customs Appraisers Group B (consisting
of officers directly recruited through UPSC;
(ii) Promotees from the feeder-cadres
of Customs Examiners in ratio of
50:50).
During the pendency of the earlier writ
petition, W.P.No.306 of 1988, the Government of
India came forward with certain proposals dated
8.6.1989 to resolve the long standing grievances of
various groups of officers and to shorten
litigation. This Court heard all the parties and
their respective views on these proposals and
accepted them. So far as the inter-se dispute
between the two sub-categories in the third feeder
category (c) was concerned - namely promotee and
direct recruit Customs Appraisers Group B, it was
stated that the decision in Gagan Bakshi Yadav vs.
Union of India [J.T. 1996 (5) SC 118] would
govern. In respect of promotion to Group A posts
from all the three feeder groups, (a), (b) and (c)
it was agreed that the proposals of the Government
of India dated 8.6.89 would govern. Under those
proposals a new quota rule of 6:1:2 was to apply to
these three feeder channels in Group B for
promotion to Group A. This Court observed that the
proposals were just fair and equitable and
accordingly, the Union of India should amend the
Rules so far as promotion to Group A service was
concerned and review all post-1979 adhoc promotions
to the posts of Senior Superintendent/Assistant
Collector. This exercise was limited to the
promotee quota of 50% of Group A posts from the
three feeder channels because the remaining 50% in
Group A was to be filled by direct recruitment.
Certain other consequential directions were also
given. The Writ Petition stood disposed of in
terms of the said directions by Judgment dated
22.11.1996.
As stated in the counter-affidavit of the
Union of India, thereafter, Rule 18 of the Rules
was amended on 23.3.1998 by the Indian Customs and
Central Excise Service Group A (Amendment) Rules,
1998. Subsequently, the All India seniority List
of Superintendents of Customs (P) and
Superintendents of Central Excise in Group A on the
basis of their continuous length of service in
Group B was issued. The seniority list of Customs
Appraisers was also revised from 1961 and a final
seniority list was published. In addition, a
proposal for review of 1979 promotions was also
started by requesting the UPSC to convene a meeting
of the DPC for reviewing the ad hoc promotees from
1980 onwards. Various other stages of review of
the promotions at the level of Assistant
Commissioner (Group A) and Deputy Commissioner were
referred to in the counter affidavit of the
Government of India. After the review of all
promotions is completed, it was proposed to bring
about a final list of Assistant Commissioners by
interpolating the Direct recruit Officers in Group
A and the promotees from Group B, as promoted from
the three feeder categories. But meantime, in view
of the delay in the review to be done by the UPSC,
it had become necessary to make further ‘ad hoc’
promotions to Group A posts. As the bulk of these
adhoc promotions had not come from the feeder
category of Superintendents, Central Excise Group
B, they had filed W.P. No.651 of 1997 questioning
these ad hoc promotions. They also raised
questions regarding interpretation of the
Government’s decision dated 8.6.89 and the
subsequent amendment of the Rules in 1998. I.A.No.
4 was filed by the Direct recruit Customs
Appraisers. I.A. No. 6 was filed by the Customs
Superintendents (p). The Writ petitioner filed
Contempt Petition No.513 of 1997 and this Court
ordered on 6.4.1998 the same to be registered as an
I.A. IA 8 goes alongwith W.P. 651 of 1997. We
shall deal with these matters one after the other.
Writ Petition No.651 of 1997:
The petitioners in W.P. No.651 of 1997
represented by learned senior counsel Smt. Shyamla
Pappu, are the members of the All India Federation
of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers
Association who are Superintendents of Central
Excise in Group B, representing the first of the
three feeder groups. They contend that the true
basis of the proposal of the Union of India dated
8.6.89 as reflected by para 4 and para 6.1 thereof
is that at all times the ratio of 6:1:2 from the
three feeder categories of Superintendent’s Central
Excise, Superintendents of Customs (Prevention) and
Customs Appraisers, - all in the Group B - is to be
reflected in the Group A posts. They contend that
this was what was accepted by this Court in the
Judgment dated 22.11.96 and that this principle is
also incorporated in the Rules as amended in 1998.
According to the petitioners, the intention behind
these rules also is that at all times, whenever
computation is to be made, the Superintendents of
Central Excise in Group A category must consist of
promotees of Central Excise Superintendents from
Group B in proportion of 6 out of 9. This is
because in practice, most of these officers are
aged and no sooner they are promoted, they are
retiring. Therefore, it is contended, the ratio
must be applied vis-a-vis the posts in Group A but
not to the vacancies in Group A as and when they
arise. If the ratio is to be applied as and when
the vacancies arise, then even though some Central
Excise Superintendents Group B get their promotions
as per the above quota, the required proportion of
6 out of 9 in Group A posts will not always be
maintained because of the frequent retirements of
these promotees drawn from Central Excise
Superintendents Group B category. Reliance is
placed upon R.K.Sabharwal vs. Union of India [1995
(2)SCC 745] by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners.
This contention is opposed by almost all the
learned senior counsel for the respondents, namely
Shri Anoop Chowdhury for the Union of India, Sri
Rajeev Dhawan and by Sri P.P.Rao for the other
feeder categories. Respondents’ counsel rely on
para 6.3 of the proposals dated 8.6.89 where the
procedure for filing the vacancies has been set out
and also on State of Punjab vs. Dr. R.N.Bhatnagar
[1998 (6) SCALE 642] to contend that in a quota
rule like the one before us dealing with
promotions, there is no question of filling up the
vacancy in the higher cadre caused by retirement of
a Excise Superintendent Group A promoted from the
cadre of Excise Superintendent Group B, by another
officer from the same feeder group in Group B.
The point therefore turns upon the true
intention behind the proposals of the Union
Government dated 8.6.89, the text of which has been
incorporated in the earlier Judgment of this Court
and also upon an interpretation of the Rules as
amended in 1998, pursuant to the Judgment. As the
question primarily depends upon the interpretation
of the various paragraphs of the proposals dated
8.6.89, it becomes necessary to set out the same
once again:
"16. The relevant portions of the proposal
are set out below:
2.2. The seniority list of each of the above
three feeder cadres is local and is maintained by
each collectorate/Custom House-wise. the all-India
lists of the first two feeder cadres are prepared
on the basis of continuous length of regular
service in the grade, subject to maintenance of
inter se seniority of each local cadre. The inter
se ranking in the 3rd feeder cadre (that is,
Customs Appraisers) was as per the ‘General
Principles of determining seniority of various
categories of persons employed in Central Service’
(generally known as quota-rota principles)
stipulated in the Ministry of Home Affairs OM
No.9/11/55- RPS dated 22.12.1959 (which were
modified by the Department of Personnel and
Training OM No.35014/2/80-Estt. (D) dated
7.9.1986), prior to the framing of the Indian
Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ Rules,
1987. In these Rules of 1987, it has been provided
vide sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 that--
(a) The vacancies to be filled by promotion
shall be filled in accordance with the common
seniority list of the three Group ‘B’ categories of
the officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) above.
(b) The seniority of the officers in Group ‘B’
feeder categories of service for eligibility for
promotion to Group ‘A’ shall be determined on the
basis of their regular length of service in their
respective Group ‘B’ categories, subject to the
condition that the inter se seniority in each
feeder category of service shall be maintained.
3.1 The question of determining the seniority
of the Group ‘B’ Officers of the different feeder
cadres in the quota for promotion to the grade of
Assistant Collector/Senior Superintendent Group ‘A’
has been the subject-matter of dispute in a number
of cases, and thus, unfortunately, remained
unresolved so far. There have been claims and
counterclaims by the officers of the different
feeder cadres. Even at present, this dispute is
the subject-matter of a number of writ petitions,
inter alia before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3.2 Careful thought has once again been given
to find a just and fair solution with a view to
resolving this long outstanding dispute taking into
account the reasonable prospects of promotion of
officers of different feeder cadres. It is
expected and hoped that, given the goodwill and a
sense of reason on the part of all the concerned
parties, it should be possible to find a solution
which is just and fair to find a solution from both
the streams - namely Customs and Central Excise.
4. With this object in view, the Board have
taken stock of the nature of Group ‘A’ entry grade
posts (Senior Superintendents/Assistant Collectors)
which are the subject-matter of dispute. For this
purpose, the total number of posts in the entry
grade of Group ‘A’ Service have been divided as (i)
Central Excise posts and (ii) Customs posts, on the
basis of functions which each post is required to
perform. Posts required to perform wholly or
predominantly functions under the Central Excise
posts. Similarly posts required to perform wholly
or predominantly functions under the Customs Act
have been treated as Customs posts. The ratio so
arrived at has been applied for dividing the common
posts in the Directorates and CEGAT. This
calculation gives the ratio of 65:36 as between
Central Excise and Customs posts. Since the posts
and persons manning them cannot be divided into
fractions, the figures have been rounded to 67:33
so as to give the workable ratio of 2:1.
5.1 The proposal is that the promotee quota
vacancies in the Group ‘A’ grade of Senior
Superintendent/Assistant Collector may be filled
from Central Excise and Customs Group ‘B’ Officers
in the ratio of 2:1, the number of vacancies
falling to the share of Customs Group ‘B’ Officers
being further apportioned between the two feeder
cadres of customs - namely, Customs Appraisers and
Customs (Preventive) Superintendents in the ratio
of their respective sanctioned strength (which,
rounded off to workable ratio, comes to 2:1).
5.2 The need to further sub-divide the number
of vacancies in the share of the Customs Group ‘B’
Officers between the Customs Appraisers and Customs
(P) Superintendents arises because : (a) the two
feeder cadres of Customs Appraisers and Customs (P)
Superintendents are different and separate, (b)
their seniority lists are separate, (c) whereas
recruitment to Customs (P) Superintendents’ Grade
is 100% by promotion, in the case of Customs
Appraisers, it is 50% by direct recruitment and 50%
by promotion, and (d) in terms of the General
Principles governing determination of seniority
laid down by the M.H.A./DOP&T, where there are more
than one feeder cadres, the inter se seniority of
each feeder cadre is required to be maintained
while preparing the seniority list in the higher
grade to which promotions are to be made, which is
also the promotion in the 1987 Recruitment Rules of
IC & CES Group ‘A’.
6.1 It is noticed that Central Excise Group
‘B’ Officers get their promotion to Group ‘B’ after
having put in, by and large, very long years of
service in Group ‘C’ and, consequently, they are of
much olderage group as compared to Customs
Appraisers. Therefore, placing the Superintendents
of Central Excise first and placing Customs
Officers thereafter, in the promotion panel would
not present any material disadvantage to Customs
Officers. The age group of Superintendents of
Central Excise is, by and large, such that they
would retire before their turn for next promotion
to the grade of Deputy Collector comes. As of now,
there is hardly any Deputy Collector of Central
Excise anywhere in India who is a promotee from
Group ‘B’ in the Central Excise; Central Excise
Officers would generally retire as Assistant
Collectors, thereby increasing the chances of
officers of younger age group from the Customs
stream for their next promotion to the grade of
Deputy Collector.
6.2 By and large, similar position would be
there in the case of Customs (P) Superintendents
vis-a-vis Direct Recruit Customs Appraisers.
Therefore, a reasonable placement in the combined
all- India seniority list may be in the following
order:
(i) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group
‘B’
(ii) Superintendents of Customs (P) Group ‘B’
(iii)Customs Appraisers.
6.3 To sum up, according to the above formula,
each bunch of 9 vacancies in the promotion quota
for Group ‘B’ feeder cadres will be apportioned in
the ratio 6:1:2 consisting of Central Excise
Superintendents, Customs (P) Superintendents and
Customs Appraisers respectively. To illustrate, if
9 vacancies exist for the promotee quota in Group
‘A’ entry point, the first six vacancies would go
to Superintendents of Central Excise, the seventh
vacancy to customs (P) Superintendents and the
eighth and ninth to Appraisers; further vacancies
to be filled up on the basis of a ‘cycle’ in the
above order.
7. For the purpose of making promotions to
Group ‘A’ separate consideration lists of
Superintendents of Central Excise on the one hand,
and Appraisers (both direct recruits and promotees)
and Preventive Superintendents of Customs on the
other hand, would be drawn up first on all-India
basis. While Group ‘B’ Officers of the two feeder
cadres-namely, Superintendents of Central Excise
and Superintendents of Customs (P) - may be placed
in their respective consideration lists on the
basis of their continuous length of service in
Group ‘B’, the Group ‘B’ Officers of the feeder
cadre of Appraisers may be placed in their list on
the basis of the principles of quota-rota as in the
General Principles laid down from time to time in
the instructions of MHA/DOP&T applicable to all the
Services under the Union of India, circulated on
22.12.1959 and 7.2.1986."
It will be noticed from para 4 of the above
proposals of the Government of India dated 8.6.89
that as between the Excise Department Officers and
the Customs Department Officers, the promotions
from Group B to Group A are to be in the ratio of
2:1 or 6:3, that is to say, 6 will go to promotees
from Central Excise Superintendents Group B,
thereafter, out of the next 3 promotions meant for
the Customs Department, one will go to
Superintendents (P) Customs and 2 to Customs
Appraisers Group B. The order of the promotions is
also set out in the ratio of 6:1:2 between
Superintendents Excise, Superintendents (P) Customs
and Appraisers, Customs, namely first 6, then one
and lastly two, respectively from these three
feeder channels. Para 6:1 refers to the factual
aspect of the Central Excise Superintendents Group
A - promoted from Central Excise Superintendent
Group B - retiring frequently. Para 6.3 gives an
example as to how the vacancies in Group A, as and
when they arise, are to be filled.
In our opinion, there is no merit in the
contention of the Writ Petitioners that at all
times Group A posts must contain a ratio of 6
promotees of Central Excise Superintendents Group B
for every 9 Group A posts. Such an intention does
not follow from para 4 or para 6.1 of the proposals
dated 8.6.89 or the Rules as amended in 1998.
It will be noticed that prior to the proposals
8.6.89, there was no quota as between the three
feeder groups for purpose of promotion to Group A
and it appears promotions were being made on the
basis of the length of service or continuous
officiation. But then, it was found over a period
that such a procedure created various grievances
among the three feeder groups. Therefore,
introduction of a quota system was found to be
necessary. Then the next question before the
Department was as to what was to be the quota
between the various groups. Obviously it was to be
one providing an equitable distribution of Group A
posts between the three feeder groups. For that
purpose the department went into the question as to
the posts having distinctive functions in the two
main groups, the Excise and the Customs Departments
and then it went into the same question in the two
sub groups of the Customs officers. After finding
out the number of posts in the two main groups of
Excise and Customs, it was obviously decided that a
quota of 2:1 or 6:3 would be fair as between Excise
& Customs groups and that a further sub-quota of
1:2 would be just as between the two sub categories
in the Customs Department. That was how the quota
of 6:1:2 appears to have been arrived at. We are
clear in our mind that, on a fair reading of the
whole of para 4, that was all the purport of para
4and it was never intended in the said para 4 that
in the promoted category of Group A officers, there
should always be 6 promotees from Excise
Superintendents, Group B for every 9 posts in Group
A.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied
also upon para 6.1. There is no doubt a reference
in para 6.1 to the frequent retirements of those
Group A officers who are promoted from the category
of Excise Superintendents Group B but that fact, in
our opinion, has been referred there for the
limited purpose of giving precedence to the Excise
Superintendents Group B for promotion to the first
6 vacancies in Group A, in every cycle of 9
vacancies. It is no where stated in para 6.1 that
because of such retirement of Excise
Superintendents Group B on promotion to Group A,
every such vacancy is to be filled only by
promotion of another officer from Central Excise
Superintendents Group B.
The respondents are therefore right in relying
on para 6.3. That para works out an example. It
says that as and when vacancies arise in Group A
give first 6 vacancies to 6 from Excise
Superintendents Group B, then the next vacancy to
Customs Superintendent (P) and then the further two
vacancies to the Customs Appraisers, in that order.
Thus, on an analysis of paras 4, 6.1 and 6.3, we
find no conflict whatsoever between the said paras.
On the other hand, they form a harmonious scheme.
The result is that once officers from these three
feeder categories are promoted to Group A, they
cease to have their birthmarks of Group B in the
promoted category of Group A. There would then be
no question of filling up a vacancy in Group A
created by the retirement of a promotee Excise
Superintendent Group B by another officer from the
same group. This is because, once promoted to
Group A, the identity of the feeder channel from
which they are promoted ceases to exist.
Reliance by the petitioners is placed upon
R.K.Sabharwal’s case [1995 (2)SCC 745]. That case
deals with the principle that the posts vacated by
an officer recruited from SC/ST category must be
filled in only by the same reserved category. This
is because of the special provision in Article 335
of the Constitution of India relating to adequate
representation of the SC/STs in the services. The
birth marks there remain even on promotion inasmuch
as a particular number of posts in the promotional
category are reserved to be filled in only from
among SC/STs. On the other hand, so far as a
normal quota rule between two feeder channels for
recruitment or promotion is concerned, be it
between direct recruits and promotees or promotion
by a quota between different feeder groups (as in
the case before us), the relevant precedents, are
Paramjit Singh & Others vs. Ram Rakha & Others
[1982 (3) SCC 191] and State of Punjab & Others vs.
Dr.R.N.Bhatnagar & Another [1998 (6) SCALE 642].
In Paramjit Singh’s Case which related to
recruitment from among promotees and direct
recruits, D.A.Desai, J. pointed out that if a
quota rule between direct recruits and promotees
were treated as a rule of reservation, then because
of the frequent retirements of the promotees who
were generally closer to retirement, most vacancies
in the promotional posts would repeatedly go to the
aged promotees leaving little scope for direct
recruitment. At page 196, the learned Judge
clarified as follows:
"What this Court meant while saying that when
a quota rule is prescribed for recruitment to a
cadre, it meant that quota should be co-related to
the vacancies which are to be filled in. Who
retired and from what source he was recruited may
not be very relevant because retirement from
service may not follow the quota rule."
The learned Judge further pointed out:
"Promotees who come to the service at an
advanced age may retire early and direct recruits
who enter the service at a comparatively young age
may continue for a long time. If, therefore, in a
given year larger number of promotees retire and
every time the vacancy is filled in by referring to
the source from which the retiring person was
recruited, it would substantially disturb the quota
rule itself. Therefore, while making recruitment
quota rule is required to be strictly adhered to."
On the facts of that case, it was pointed out
that the quota there for recruitment was 4:1
between promotees and direct recruits and that
therefore, "whenever vacancies occur in the
service, the appointing authority has to go on
recruiting according to quota. In other words,
whenever vacancies occur, first recruit four
promotees irrespective of the factors or
circumstances causing the vacancies and as soon as
four promotees are recruited bring in a direct
recruit".
A like situation arose in State of Punjab &
Others vs. Dr. R.N. Bhatnagar & another [1998
(6) SCALE 642]. That was again a case of
recruitment by promotion to the posts of Professors
from the category of Additional Professors and also
by way of direct recruitment, in the ratio of 3:1.
The Additional Professors, who represented the
promotee feeder group having a quota of 3 vacancies
in the cadre of Professors contended that whenever
a Professor retired, one has to find out whether he
was a promotee or a direct recruit. If the vacancy
was created by retirement of a promotee, then the
said vacancy in the promotional cadre had to filled
only by a promotee from the lower cadre and not by
way of direct recruitment. Reliance for the said
contention was placed by the promotees on
Sabharwal’s case which case. This Court
distinguished Sabharwal’s Case as relating to a
scheme of reservation and observed that in a system
of quota between promotees and direct recruits,
once the posts in the higher cadre were filled,
thereafter if vacancies arose (say) by retirements,
then it was not permissible to treat the vacancy as
a vacancy earmarked for the category to which the
retiree belonged before being promoted or
recruited. Once the recruitment was made from two
channels, the birth marks got erased as stated in
State of J & K vs. Trilokhi Nath Khosa [1974 (1)
SCR 771]. In Dr.Bhatnagar’s case [1998 (6) Scale
642] Majmudar, J. observed (at p.652) as follows:
"The quota of percentage of departmental
promotees and direct recruits has to be worked out
on the basis of the roster points taking into
consideration vacancies that fall due at a given
point of time. As stated earlier, as the roster
for 3 promotees and one direct recruit moves
forward, there is no question of filling up the
vacancy created by the retirement of a direct
recruit by a direct recruit or the vacancy created
by a promotee by a promotee. Irrespective of the
identity of the person retiring, the post is to be
filled by the onward motion of 3 promotees and one
direct recruit."
The position in regard to the quota of 6:1:2
in the case before us is no different.
For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to
agree with the contention of learned senior counsel
for the writ petitioners Smt. Shyamala Pappu.
Learned senior counsel for writ petitioners
furnished some data by way of tabular statements to
show that those in Group A promoted from
Superintendents of Excise Group B are a diminishing
number and are never 6 out of 9 in the promoted
post. But, in our view, that is not the way of
looking at the problem in a case of ordinary quota
as distinct from a scheme of reservation. The
procedure indicated in the Government of India’s
proposals dated 8.6.89 in para 6.3 appears to us to
be the correct one. We have already referred to
it. It says that if vacancies arise in the Group A
posts (towards the 50% quota of promotees as
distinct from 50% quota for direct recruits to
Group A) they are to be filled up from among the
three feeder categories, the first six vacancies by
Superintendents Central Excise in Group B, the
seventh vacancy Customs (P) Superintendents and the
eighth and ninth the Customs Appraiser group. That
completes one cycle. The further vacancies as and
when they arise in Group A are to be filled again
by following the same procedure.
There was a grievance raised by the writ
petitioners that pending consideration of names by
the UPSC for promotion to Group A, adhoc promotions
have been made to Group A and members from the
first feeder category, namely, Superintendents of
Excise Group B were not promoted. This was
particularly so after the earlier judgment. In
other words, the complaint is that for the said
adhoc promotions, the quota rule of 6:1:2 has not
been followed. The answer of the Union of India in
this behalf is that it has been found that earlier
there have been excess promotions to Group A from
the petitioners’ category of Excise Superintendents
Group B and, therefore, presently, more officers
from the other two feeder channels have been
promoted on an adhoc basis so that there will be no
imbalance when the final review takes place. Even
assuming that for purposes of adhoc promotions it
would have been fair to follow the ratio of 6:2:1,
the respondents have shown adequate justification
for not following the said ratio while making adhoc
promotions. Thus if one of these groups in the
quota has had more promotions earlier and if the
Government of India wants to off-set the said
advantage, such an action cannot be said to be
unfair.
For the aforesaid reasons, this W.P. No.651
of 1997 is liable to be dismissed. The same points
are raised in IA 8 and for the same reasons, the
said IA is also liable to be dismissed.
In I.A.No.4, the applicants are the Customs
Appraisers (Direct recruits) and their learned
senior counsel, Sri Rajeev Dhawan contends that it
will be sufficient that this Court fixes some time
limit for implementation of the judgment of this
Court dated 22.11.96 and directs preparation of an
inter se seniority list of direct recruits
Assistant Collectors and promotee Assistant
Collectors within their quota and also for review
of all promotions. There can be no objection for
fixing some reasonable time limit.
I.A. No.6 and I.A.No.7 are connected. I.A.
No.7 is filed for permission to file I.A. No.6.
I.A. No.6 is filed by the Customs Superintendents
(P) and their learned senior counsel Sri P.P.Rao
contended that the ratio of 6:1:2 was based upon
the cadre strength of 1989 and that the said ratio
was liable to be altered going by the cadre
strength or posts now available. The learned
counsel contended that such a principle was already
imbedded in the proposals dated 8.6.89 of the
Government of India as extracted in the earlier
judgment. According to him the department could
not be permitted to proceed on the assumption that
the ratio of 6:1:2 was to be followed for all time.
It may be noted that as long as a particular
quota is fixed by a rule, it will have to be
followed till the quota fixed therein is altered by
appropriate amendment of the relevant rules. As
held in V.B.Badami vs. State of Mysore [1976 (2)
SCC 901 (at 910)], quotas which are fixed can only
be altered by a fresh determination of the quota.
It will be for the applicants to take such steps as
they deem fit, if they feel aggrieved about the
existing quota but the filing of this IA is not the
proper remedy. We are not also prepared to accept
that the proposals of the Government of India dated
8.6.89 themselves visualised a constant change in
the quota from time to time. Such a change, in our
view, has to be done by a fresh determination and
it is for the applicants to make out a case
therefor and take the necessary steps for such
modification.
For the aforesaid reasons, Writ petition
No.651 of 1997 and I.A.No.8 are dismissed. IA No.7
is allowed granting permission to file IA No.6.
But IA No.6 is dismissed leaving it to the
applicants to make out a case for change of the
quota and take appropriate steps as the applicants
may deem fit. We express no opinion as to the
merit of such claim. The above matters are all
disposed of as stated above.
IA No.4 in Writ Petition No.306 of 1988,
there will be a direction to the Union of India to
take steps for implementation of the judgment of
this Court dated 22.11.1996 in Writ Petition No.306
of 1988 as expeditiously as possible and at any
rate within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of this judgment.