Shri Ajeet Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Ajeet Kumar, a Tax Assistant, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. The CAT had dismissed his original application concerning his promotion. The petitioner was appointed as a Tax Assistant in 2013 and was eligible for promotion to Senior Tax Assistant (STA) under the old rules, which required three years of service and passing a departmental examination. In 2015, the department underwent restructuring, merging the posts of Deputy Office Superintendent and STA into a new cadre of Executive Assistant. New recruitment rules for Executive Assistant came into effect on September 28, 2015, requiring ten years of service as Tax Assistant and passing the departmental examination for promotion. The petitioner was promoted to STA (redesignated as Executive Assistant) effective April 1, 2017, for vacancies in 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Government of India later issued an order on July 1, 2019, directing a review of promotions made contrary to the 2015 Recruitment Rules.

Held

The Court held that the promotions to the post of Executive Assistant must be strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions contained under the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The petitioner was promoted dehors the statutory provisions, and therefore, the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC. The Court found that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, as the review DPC had not been held. The Court also noted that the respondents would follow principles of natural justice if reversion became necessary. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished as not applicable to the present case, as there was no cause of action at present and the review DPC was yet to be held. The CAT was justified in dismissing the original application. The writ petition was dismissed as premature. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions to the post of Executive Assistant, made prior to or after the coming into force of the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non Gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 2015, should be strictly in consonance with these rules? 2. Whether the petitioner's promotion, made dehors the statutory provisions of the 2015 Recruitment Rules, is valid? 3. Whether the Government of India was justified in directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider promotions made contrary to the 2015 Recruitment Rules? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that he was entitled to challenge the reversion, which was yet to take place, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam. He also relied on Ashok Kumar Rana for the principle of affording an opportunity of hearing before reversion and Vijay Kumar for non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's Contentions: The Union of India contended that vacancies were for recruitment years 2016, 2017, and 2018, and the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which were in existence, should have been applied. They argued that promotions could not have been made under rules that were not in existence at the time of the vacancies.