Shri Khwairakpam Lenin Singh vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are Executive Assistants in the GST and Central Excise department, filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. The CAT had dismissed their original applications. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant, which was later redesignated as Executive Assistant. The promotions were issued for vacancies in the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Union of India contended that the promotions were made dehors the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which were in existence. The Government of India had permitted a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held to ensure promotions were in consonance with the statutory provisions.

Held

The Court held that the promotions were granted dehors the statutory provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to be held to ensure promotions were made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions. The Court found that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, as the review DPC had not been held. Therefore, the petitioners' challenge was premature. The Court noted that the respondents would follow the principles of natural justice and fair play if reversion became necessary. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the CAT, which had dismissed the original applications. The Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions granted to the petitioners were in accordance with the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the process of appointment was under challenge, and they were entitled to challenge the reversion, which was yet to take place, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam. They also relied on Ashok Kumar Rana for the principle of natural justice in cases of reversion and Vijay Kumar for issues related to promotion and non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's argument: The Union of India contended that the Recruitment Rules of 2015 were the only applicable rules and that promotions could not be provided under rules that did not exist at the time. They argued that the Government was justified in directing a review DPC to ensure promotions were made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions. The Revenue argued that the petitioners' reliance on cited judgments was misplaced as no cause of action had arisen, and the review DPC was yet to be held.