Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors. vs. Anil Kumar Sharma And Anr.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Court found that the Tribunal's order could not be sustained for several reasons. Firstly, the respondent No. 1 was promoted to Superintendent in Shillong Zone in 2017, a fact that was not brought to the Tribunal's notice. Secondly, while the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh struck down zone-wise recruitment, it did not direct allocation of zones based on All India Merit. Thirdly, the respondent No. 1 had not challenged his zone allocation to Shillong, made in 2004, until 2014, rendering his claim time-barred under Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Court also noted that promotions in Shillong Zone were based on zonal seniority, and no one junior to the respondent No. 1 within that zone was promoted. The Court found no merit in the respondent's claim of discrimination, as the allocation criteria were not challenged and promotions within the zone were in order.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and others, are challenging an order dated June 24, 2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench. The CAT had allowed an Original Application (O.A.) filed by respondent No. 1, Anil Kumar Sharma, an Inspector of Central Excise. The CAT directed the petitioners to streamline rules for promotion, consider Mr. Sharma for promotion to Superintendent from the date his junior, Shri Gyanesh Kumar, was promoted, and ensure "seniority of merit" is not disturbed. Mr. Sharma was selected as an Inspector in 1996, but his zone-wise allocation to Shillong in 2004 was challenged in 2014 when Shri Gyanesh Kumar, junior to Mr. Sharma in the All India Merit List, was promoted. The CAT initially directed the petitioners to consider Mr. Sharma's representation, which was rejected on March 25, 2015, stating promotions were based on zonal seniority. Mr. Sharma then filed O.A. No. 339/2015, leading to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to convene a review DPC for the respondent No. 1 and promote him to the post of Superintendent from the date his junior, Shri Gyanesh Kumar, was promoted, despite the respondent No. 1 having been promoted to Superintendent in Shillong Zone in 2017. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the allocation of the respondent No. 1 to the Shillong Zone was not in accordance with law and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, given that the respondent No. 1 did not challenge his zone allocation until 2014. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the respondent No. 1 was promoted in 2017, a fact not brought to the Tribunal's notice. They contended that the respondent No. 1 delayed raising grievances about his zone allocation until 2014, making the claim time-barred under Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They also pointed out that promotions are based on zonal seniority, not All India Merit, and that the last person promoted in Shillong Zone was senior to the respondent No. 1 within that zone. They relied on Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group ‘C’ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002, regarding separate cadres for each Commissionerate. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent No. 1 argued that his junior, Shri Gyanesh Kumar, was promoted to Superintendent while he was denied promotion. He contended that the zone-wise selection process, as struck down by the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh, also made his subsequent zone allocation illegal. He claimed discrimination in promotion matters violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.