All
India Federation of Central Excise Vs. Union of India & Ors [1999] INSC 48
(22 February 1999)
K.
VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK, & M. JAGANNADHA RAO. 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 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 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.
Back
