ASHOK SRIVASTAVA,J. - (1.) THESE three writ petition are connected with each other and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) THE factual position emerging from the pleadings of the parties is more or less undisputed, so we would like to give only a summary of it before we proceed to consider the issues involved in these writ petitions. The petitioners and proforma respondents of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007 have put up their case by saying that prior to 1989 there were no separate Rules for recruitment of stenographers and the Rules in this regard were introduced for the first time in 1989. In Kanpur region of the Income Tax Department, acute shortage of stenographers was felt during the period 1977-78. The appointments for the post of stenographers ( Ordinary Grade ) were to be made by the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission'), New Delhi. A demand was sent to the Commission to sponsor certain number of stenographers to the Income Tax Department, Kanpur. The Commission could not provide any selected candidate and by its letter dated 19.4.1978 the Commission expressed its inability to hold a selection and requested the department to fill up the vacancies through Employment Exchange. The department sought permission to recruit the stenographers from the Central Board of Direct Taxes ( for short the C.B.D.T. or the Board) which was granted to it vide letter dated 29.6.1978. Examinations were conducted and the petitioners and the proforma respondents were appointed in the Income Tax Department on various dates between 1978-79. Referring certain facts relating to the Income Tax Departments of Lucknow and Allahabad the petitioners have alleged that the Commission granted approval for regularization of the ad-hoc stenographers from the date of their initial appointment in the Lucknow and Allahabad region. The petitioners have further said that their cases were exactly similar to those stenographers and, therefore, they were also entitled for the benefit of regularization. The Department constituted a D.P.C. for considering the confirmation of the petitioners and in pursuance of the recommendations of the D.P.C., the Department confirmed their services vide orders dated 11.6.1982 and 17.4.1984. The petitioners were also allowed to cross the efficiency bar by the D.P.C. vide order dated 30.1.1984. The Commission had held a Special Qualifying Examination ( S.E.Q. for short ) to consider regularisation of ad-hoc stenographers but the petitioners did not appear in it as they were already confirmed as mentioned above. The petitioners have further said, referring certain gradation lists prepared by the Department, that a common gradation list was issued in which the petitioners were shown senior to the respondent nos. 1 to 5. But in gradation list dated 1.1.1995 the names of the petitioners were found deleted against which action of the department, the petitioners filed various representations. The Department forwarded them to the C.B.D.T. and the Board after due consideration of the matter passed and issued an order dated 22.9.1998. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax passed a consequential order on 13.10.1998 providing therein that all the stenographers mentioned therein shall be treated at par with regular employees from the dates of their appointments. Another order was passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur on 15.10.1998 reverting the respondent nos. 1 to 5 also from the post of stenographer Grade II to the post of stenographer Grade III. In their Writ Petition No. 29117 of 2007, the petitioners have referred in detail the case of J.V. Trinidade. Since we are going to deal with that case also in this judgment in its latter part, there is no need to give details of J.V. Trinidade case at this point.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1998 passed by the Board and consequential orders dated 13.10.1998 and 15.10.1998 passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur and an order dated 16.10.1998 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut region the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and some other stenographers filed three Original Applications in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench.;