Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are serving as Stenographers (Ordinary Grade) in the Income Tax Offices and are attached with different Income Tax Officers of Amritsar. Petitioner No. 1 joined as Stenographer 'in Nov., 1969, petitioner No. 2 in May, 1970 and petitioner No. 3 in July in the pay grade of Rs. 130-300, subsequently revised to Rs. 330-560. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 passed the U D. C's Examination held by the Department in 1973, and petitioner No. 2 in 1972. All of them also passed the qualifying examination for being considered for the post of Income Tax Inspectors in 1977. It is alleged that the ministerial establishment in the Income Tax Department consists of L.D.Cs., U.D.Cs. Head Clerks, Supervisors and Stenographers. However, the petition relates to the rights of the U.D.Cs. and the Stenographers (O. G.) only and not to those of Head Clerks and Supervisors.
(2.) A combined seniority list is maintained in the office of the Commissioner, Income Tax, respondent No. 3, from amongst the Stenographers rnd U.D.Cs. who have passed the qualifying examination for the post of Income Tax Inspectors for the purpose of appointing them to that post. The names of the petitioners and the UD.Cs. appear on that list. It was recommended by the Direct Taxes inquiry Committee that post of Tax Assistants in the grade of Rs 380-640 between the posts of U.D.Cs. and Tax Inspectors be created. On the basis of the recommendation, respondent No. 1 issued a circular dated 31st March, 1978 (Annexure P-J) to all the Commissioners of Income-tax in the country and created a cadre of Tax Assistants to be filled in by promotion from the cadre of U.D.Cs. on selection basis. The qualification prescribed was that the U.D C. must have rendered minimum service of three years and that he must have secured at least 40 per cent marks in the four specified papers in the Income Tax Inspector's Department Examination. It is alleged that for qualifying in the Income-tax Inspectors Department Examination, a candidate has to obtain minimum 50 per cent marks. The petitioners, in view of the circular, were excluded for appointment to the post of Tax Assistants though they had qualified in the Tax Inspector's qualifying examination by obtaining 50 per cent marks and also qualified in the U.D.C. examination.
(3.) It is next averred that a circular was issued in Nov., 1973, Annexure P-6, by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, that consideration for preparation of the list for promotion to the grade of Tax Inspectors from the grade of U.D.C. and Stenographer (O.G.), was that the names of the qualified persons w ere to be arranged in order of seniority based on the length of service in the grade of U D.C. and Stenographer (O.G.) in the Department. It was further provided that only those who were confirmed in the higher grade should be placed higher to those in the lower grade. The grievance of the petitioners is that on account of creation of the posts of Tax Assistants, they being in the higher grade the Stenographers (O.G ) will not get equal opportunity for being appointed as Tax Inspectors in view of the circular. Annexure P-6. Consequently they have prayed that the circular dated 31st March, 1978 being discriminatory is liable to be quashed.;