AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madan B. Lokur, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 26th May, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 626/2006.
The grievance of the Respondents (who were the applicants before the Tribunal) is that they were Senior Tax Assistants and, Therefore, eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector in terms of the Recruitment Rules notified on 29th November, 2002 (the nomenclature being a little illegible).
The Rules provide that Senior Tax Assistants with two years regular service in the Grade are eligible for promotion. According to the Respondents, they have put in two years of service in the grade of Senior Tax Assistants and for this reliance is placed on Rule 5 of the Central Excise and Customs Department Senior Tax Assistants (Grade ''C'' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2003 which provide that the services rendered by the Senior Tax Assistants as Data Entry Operators will be taken into account for deciding the eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. The Respondents say that they were appointed as Data Entry Operators in January, 2000 and, Therefore, they completed two years of service in the grade by January, 2002 and are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector. According to the Petitioner the Respondents did not meet this eligibility criterion.
The relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Central Excise and Customs Department Senior Tax Assistants (Grade ''C'' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2003 reads as follows:
Initial Constitution:- (i) All the persons appointed on the regular basis at the time of commencement of these rules to the Grade of Assistant Tax Assistant Upper Division Clerk (Special Pay), Data Entry Operator Grade B and C shall be deemed to have been appointed as Senior Tax Assistants under these rules. The service rendered by them before commencement of these rules shall be taken into account for deciding the eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade.
A somewhat similar issue came up for consideration before the Bombay High Court in Smt. Shobha S. Donare and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 6957/2003 decided on 17th October, 2003). The Bombay High Court took the view that persons similarly placed as the Respondents were entitled to the benefit of service rendered by them as Data Entry Operators for being counted towards their service as Senior Tax Assistants. The decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged by some parties who were aggrieved by it but the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 9th February, 2004.
From this, it is quite clear that the Respondents were eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Inspector having completed their two year period as Senior Tax Assistants.
When the Respondents were not considered for promotion, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and an interim order was passed by the Tribunal on 5th December, 2002 directing the Petitioner to interview the Respondents for promotion on a provisional basis. In compliance with the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the Respondents were in fact interviewed by the Petitioner but the result of that interview is not known.
Be that as it may, the Tribunal then heard the application filed by the Petitioners and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court as well as the averments made by the parties in the pleadings before the Tribunal, it came to the conclusion that the Respondents were eligible for promotion to the grade of Inspector with effect from 30th December, 2003 the date on which they passed the written examination. This conclusion was arrived at by the Tribunal because it was not known to the Tribunal, nor is it known to us, the result of the interview that was conducted by the Petitioner.
On this basis, the Tribunal gave a direction that the Petitioner should complete the process of selection initiated for the post of Inspector in terms of the Rules keeping in mind the fact that the Respondents had been declared successful in the written examination held on 30th December, 2003. To protect the interests of the Respondents, since the result of the interview was not known to the Tribunal, it was further directed that the if the Respondents are found fit for promotion they should be promoted to the post of Inspector with effect from the date their junior, if any, had been promoted. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has informed us that no person junior to the Respondents had been promoted.
We may note that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Respondents other than Respondent No. 9 had been given ad-hoc promotions by orders dated 23rd January, 2006 and 10th April, 2006. To this extent, it appears that the contention of the Respondents has been accepted by the Petitioner even during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a decision in a similar case being S.S.L. Narayana and Anr. v. The Chairman, CBEC others, which was directed against the order passed by the Hyderabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. We find from a perusal of the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that it pertains to promotion to the post of UDC and Tax Assistants (old) from the cadre of LDC and UDC. To this extent, the decision rendered by the High Court is not relevant to the facts of the present case.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. There is no merit in the writ petition, it is, accordingly, dismissed.