Union Of INDIA vs. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Held

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the promotion of the applicant from August 10, 2018. The Court reasoned that the applicant was selected against a 2006 notification but was denied appointment for no fault of his, with his actual appointment occurring on January 7, 2013. Consequently, a notional appointment had to be given. The Court relied on the principle that belated recognition of legitimate rights should not prejudice an individual in promotion consideration, especially when the delay was not attributable to them. The Court cited the case of G. Hanumantha Reddy v. Union of India, which held that 'continuous service' could include notional service in peculiar circumstances and that rules are meant to advance justice. The Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

The Union of India challenged an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directing the promotion of Rajesh Kumar Sharma (the respondent) as Superintendent of GST on an ad hoc basis from August 10, 2018, on par with his juniors. Sharma was initially denied appointment as Inspector of Customs and Central Excise in 2006 due to a discrepancy in his caste certificate. After a legal battle, he was appointed on January 7, 2013, against a post kept unfilled since 2009. A seniority list in 2014 placed him at Sl.No.592. For promotion to Superintendent, eight years of service as Inspector were required. Sharma's representation for notional appointment to be counted for eligibility was not responded to, leading him to file the OA before the CAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing the promotion of the applicant (Rajesh Kumar Sharma) as Superintendent of GST on an ad hoc basis from August 10, 2018, on par with his juniors, by counting his notional period of service as Inspector. Contentions: Petitioner (Union of India): Argued that the Tribunal was not justified as Sharma had not completed eight years of actual service as Inspector by March 14, 2018, having been appointed only on January 7, 2013. They contended that the Tribunal overlooked this fact. Respondent (Rajesh Kumar Sharma): Contended that in cases where a person could not be appointed due to no fault of their own, notional appointment should be granted, and the period of notional service should be counted towards the required years of service for promotion. Relied on Supreme Court pronouncements and a High Court of Jharkhand judgment.