Mr Karishar Javed vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are Executive Assistants in the Central GST and Central Excise departments, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench. The CAT had dismissed their original applications concerning promotions. The petitioners were promoted to the post of Senior Tax Assistant, which was subsequently redesignated as Executive Assistant. The promotions were issued for vacancies in the recruitment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Union of India contended that the promotions were made dehors the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015, which came into existence in 2015. The Government of India had permitted a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held to ensure promotions were in consonance with the 2015 Recruitment Rules.

Held

The Court held that the CAT was justified in dismissing the original applications. The Court found that the promotions were granted dehors the statutory provisions contained in the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Government of India was therefore justified in directing a review DPC. The Court noted that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, and the review DPC had not been held. Consequently, there was no order of reversion at that point, making the petitions premature. The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the petitioners, stating that they did not apply to the present situation where a review DPC was yet to be held. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the CAT.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions granted to the petitioners were in accordance with the statutory provisions, specifically the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? 2. Whether the CAT was justified in dismissing the original applications filed by the petitioners? The petitioner argued that they were entitled to challenge the reversion, which was yet to take place, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam. They also cited Ashok Kumar Rana for the principle that an opportunity of hearing must be accorded before reversion. The Union of India contended that the Recruitment Rules of 2015 were the only applicable rules and that promotions could not be made under rules that did not exist at the time. They argued that a review DPC was necessary to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions.