Shri. Ram Khilari Upadhayay vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are employees of the Central Excise and Central Tax department, were promoted to the post of Executive Assistant. The promotions were made for the vacancies of the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The Government of India, by an order dated July 1, 2019, directed a review of these promotions, stating that they were made contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The petitioners, aggrieved by this memorandum, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their applications. The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the CAT.

Held

The Court held that the promotions to the post of Executive Assistant were made dehors the statutory provisions of the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The Government of India was justified in directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to ensure promotions were made strictly in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Court found that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, as the review DPC had not been held. Therefore, the writ petitions were considered premature. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners were distinguished as not applicable to the present facts, as there was no cause of action at present and the review DPC was yet to be held. 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 for the vacancies of 2016-17 and 2017-18, were in accordance with the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? 2. Whether the Government of India was justified in directing a review of the promotions based on the 2015 Recruitment Rules? 3. Whether the writ petitions are premature as a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has not yet been held? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that they were entitled to challenge the reversion, which was yet to take place, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam. They also cited Ashok Kumar Rana, arguing that reversion requires an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, they referred to Vijay Kumar, concerning non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's arguments: The Union of India argued that the promotions were made contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which were in existence at the time of the promotions. They contended that only the 2015 Rules could be applied for promotions to the post of Executive Assistant. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original applications as promotions must be strictly in consonance with statutory provisions.