200(1) the Civil Lawyers Chandigarh authorities who “may direct”‘ any prosecution for punishment of any person offending against the provisions of the Act are the Standing Committee and the Chief Officer. The Appendix bears the heading “Rules for recruitment to the grade of Directors of Postal Services in the Indian Postal Services, Class I in the Posts and Telegraph Department”. People enter into all sorts of contracts on the basis of hopes, expectations and assessments which no professional expert would consider prudent, let alone feel able to “predict with accuracy”.
301, but it was contended that the suits were not maintainable Revenue Lawyers in Chandigarh view of s. It is, therefore, clear Famous Revenue Lawyers Chandigarh that, even if it be held that the order of the Government dated 5th June, 1965 revising the seniority of these officers in the junior time scale was valid, the order dated 17th January, 1966 revising the seniority in the grade of Directors of Postal Services is not valid and justified. I have little doubt that many fortunes have been both made and lost (and sometimes both) by someone entering into such a contract.
17 of the Act which provides that no assessment made under the Act shall be called in question in any court. Seniority was to be taken into account -only if other qualifications were practically equal. The presumption exists that the promotion of the petitioners and respondents 638 3 to 7 to the grade of Directors must have been made Civil Advocates in High Court Chandigarh in accordance with these instructions and rules, so that the appointment of all these concerned parties as Directors was based on merit to be taken into account at the time of selection and not on seniority in the time scale of Class I Service.
301 and held that ,the imposition of tax was illegal. The fact that a court may regard it “unreasonable to suppose that any economist will be able to predict with accuracy the nature and extent of changes in the purchasing power of money” over many decades (to quote Gibbs J in Pennant Hills Restaurants Pty Ltd v Barrell Insurances Pty Ltd  HCA 3, (1981) 145 CLR 625, 639) is nothing to the point. Rule 3 prescribes the method of recruitment and is as Follows:- ” Recruitment to posts in the grade shall be by selection from among the officers of the Senior Time Scale of the Indian Postal Service, Class I,, one post being reserved for promotion of Presidency Postmasters, on the basis of selection.
The principles for appointment to the post of Directors of Postal Services were initially laid down by the Home Ministry’s Memorandum dated 24th May, 1948 to which we have already ,referred. The High Court held that the suits were incompetent. A copy of Appendix 6-A has also been placed before us. Once a member of the Class I Service in the time scale was selected for promotion to the grade of Director and given seniority over another officer selected later, the seniority so determined as a result of selection could not be made dependent on the seniority in the time scale.
From the very first stage, therefore, appointments to the Posts of Directors of Postal Services were to be made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of seniority. It is clear that, in these circumstances, even if there was justification for revising the seniority inter se of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 7 in the time scale of Class I Service, that revision of seniority could not in any way affect their order of seniority in the grade of Directors to which they were promoted on the basis of selection in accordance with the rules.
The relevant Rules have been brought to our notice by placing before us extracts from Posts and Telegraphs Manual Volume IV, 4th Edn. In appeal before the Chandigarh High Court Civil Lawyers Court it was conceded by the State that the tax could not be imposed in view of Art. , in which paragraph 153 mentioned that the rules for recruitment to the grade of Directors of Postal Services in the Indian Postal Service Class I in the Posts and Telegraphs Department are given in Appendix 6-A.
As indicated earlier, it was laid down that appointments to Grade It of the Directors of Postal Services were to be made by promotion by selection of the Best Revenue Lawyers in Chandigarh officers in the senior time scale of the Indian Postal Services Class 1, seniority being regarded only where other qualifications were practically equal. Rule 2 in this Appendix lays down the scale of’ pay of the post in the grade which is admittedly Rs.
Section 23A(3) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, makes it an offence if a retiring President to whom a direction has been issued by the State Government to hand over charge of his office does not comply with such direction and under s. Following that decision, the trial court decreed the suits filed by the appellants. ” This Rule also makes it clear that appointment to the grade of Directors of Postal Services is made by selection and not on the basis of promotion in accordance with seniority.
6011, the petitioner therein challenged in a writ petition, the levy of sales tax on the same grounds and the High Court declared the notifications to be offensive to Art. it appears that, after ‘the two grades of Directors of Postal Services were amalgamated, some fresh rules were promulgated.