http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

        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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

             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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

        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          counter-  claims  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

        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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             "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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

             "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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

        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.