Devendra Kumar 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 based on vacancies for the recruitment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently, the Government of India issued an order on July 1, 2019, stating that promotions were made contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which were framed in 2015. The Government directed a review of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings to ensure promotions were in consonance with the Recruitment Rules. The petitioners challenged this memorandum before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their applications. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petitions before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the promotions granted to the petitioners were made dehors the statutory provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Government of India was justified in directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to ensure that promotions are 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 Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, stating that they did not apply to the present situation where a review DPC was yet to be held and no reversion order had been passed. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original applications. The Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions granted to the petitioners for the recruitment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were contrary to the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to challenge the reversion, which is yet to take place, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. They also relied on Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors. for the principle that an opportunity of hearing must be accorded before reversion. Furthermore, they cited Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. regarding non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's contention: The Union of India contended that the promotions were made dehors the statutory provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2015, as these rules were in existence at the time of promotion. They argued that the Government was justified in directing a review DPC to ensure promotions were strictly in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of 2015.