Smt Jayashree Attigeri vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are Executive Assistants in the Central Tax department, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had dismissed their original applications concerning promotions. The petitioners were appointed as Tax Assistants and subsequently promoted to Senior Tax Assistant, which was later redesignated as Executive Assistant. The promotions were made under the Central Excise and Customs Department Senior Tax Assistant (Group C Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2003. However, the Government of India issued a memorandum dated July 1, 2019, directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held, considering the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The petitioners argued that the 2015 Rules, which were not in existence at the time of their promotions, should not be applied retrospectively. The CAT dismissed their applications, finding the direction for a review DPC justified.

Held

The High Court held that the promotions were made dehors the statutory provisions, specifically referring to the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Court found that the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to ensure promotions were made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions contained under the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Court noted that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, as the review DPC had not been held. Therefore, the Court considered the present petitions to be premature. The Court dismissed the petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court also noted that the respondents would follow the principles of natural justice and fair play if reversion became necessary. The judgment in W.P.No.3938/2021 and connected matters, which dealt with a similar controversy, was made applicable.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions made under the Recruitment Rules of 2003 are liable to be reviewed and potentially altered based on the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which came into effect later? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners contended that their promotions were made in accordance with the prevailing rules at the time of their appointment and promotion. They argued that the 2015 Rules, which were not in existence when their promotions were processed, should not be applied retrospectively to their detriment. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. and the Manipur High Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors. to argue for the protection of their existing promotions and the right to hearing if reversion was considered. Revenue's argument: The respondents argued that promotions must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions, and the 2015 Rules were the applicable rules for promotions to the post of Executive Assistant. They contended that the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to ensure promotions were made in consonance with the 2015 Rules.