Shri Tourangbam Bobo Meitei vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Tourangbam Bobo Meitei, an Executive Assistant in the Customs Department, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. The CAT had dismissed his original application. The petitioner was appointed as a Tax Assistant in 2013. Promotions were initially made under the Old Rules. In 2015, the posts of Deputy Office Superintendent and Senior Tax Assistant were merged and redesignated as Executive Assistant. New Recruitment Rules for Executive Assistant came into force in 2015, stipulating that Tax Assistants with 10 years of service and who had passed the departmental examination were qualified for promotion. The petitioner was promoted to Senior Tax Assistant (redesignated as Executive Assistant) effective April 1, 2017, for vacancies in 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Government of India, vide an order dated July 1, 2019, directed a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held, as promotions had been made contrary to the 2015 Recruitment Rules.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's promotion was made dehors the statutory provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non Gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to be held to ensure promotions were made strictly in consonance with these rules. The Court found that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, and the review DPC was yet to be held. Therefore, the petition was considered premature. The judgments cited by the petitioner were distinguished as not applicable to the present facts. The Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal case did not help as there was no cause of action at present. The Ashok Kumar Rana case was distinguished as the stage of reversion had not come, and principles of natural justice would be followed if necessary. The Vijay Kumar case was also distinguished as it dealt with adverse ACRs, which was not the issue here. The Court found no reason to interfere with the CAT's order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's promotion to the post of Executive Assistant, made prior to the implementation of the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non Gazetted post) Recruitment Rules, 2015, is valid? 2. Whether the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to be held to reconsider promotions based on the 2015 Recruitment Rules? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the process of appointment was under challenge and he was entitled to challenge the potential reversion, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. He also relied on the Manipur High Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors., regarding the necessity of an opportunity of hearing before reversion. The petitioner further cited the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. regarding non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's arguments: The Union of India argued that the vacancies were for recruitment years 2016, 2017, and 2018, and the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which were in existence, should have been applied. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original application as promotions must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions of the 2015 Recruitment Rules.