T. KAMALAKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. T. V. RAJAGOPALAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are against the orders of a learned Judge allowing O.P. 1919 of 1976 and quashing the proceedings relating to the selection and appointment of the 4th respondent in the writ petition as an Appraiser of Customs and directing respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to consider the case of the writ petitioner that he was entitled to be selected and posted to the post of Appraiser in the vacancy to which the said 4th respondent was appointed. Writ Appeal No. 284 of 1978 is by the aggrieved 4th respondent in the writ petition and Writ Appeal No. 290 of 1978 is by what we may call, the Customs Authorities, that is, the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Customs House, Cochin-3, the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Madras and the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of Appraisers.

(2.) It would be convenient to refer to the ranks of parties with respect to the writ petition rather than the appeals before us. The writ petitioner was promoted as an Appraiser on 26-6-1968. The 4th respondent claims to be senior to the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner was given seniority. It has been stated by the Central Government Pleader that the writ petitioner was promoted in 1976, that the 4th respondent was promoted on 26-3-1976, and that in the provisional seniority list compiled on 1-7-1978 the writ petitioner's rank is No. 122 and that of the 4th respondent, No. 129. Counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 284 of 1978 invited our attention to the averments in paragraphs 8 and 19 of the writ petition. Paragraph 8 reads:

(3.) Before us, Chapter and verse have been quoted on either side in regard to the operation of the rule as to age limit, and the relevant point of time with respect to which the same should be applied. For the 4th Respondent the rules or instructions prescribing age limit with respect to the date of selection, and, in particular, with respect to the 1st of July of the year in which the Departmental Promotion Committee's meeting is held, were stressed, coupled with the further instruction that the Departmental Promotion Committee will be prompt, diligent, and regular in its meetings, so as to obviate the calamity of the persons within the age limit getting over aged and disqualified as a result of the laches or inaction of the Committee. For the writ petitioners (the additional respondents in W. A. No. 290 of 1978), our attention was called to the rules or instructions which stated that the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee is not to last for more than a period of 18 months from selection, or till preparation of a fresh panel, whichever is earlier. It might have become necessary for us to consider these aspects; but, in view of the objection raised, to which we shall refer, and the view that we take, and the course that we propose to adopt, it is unnecessary to do so.