Shri Deepak R vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are Executive Assistant Commissioners of Customs and Central Tax, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT had dismissed their original applications which sought to set aside government memorandums directing a review of promotions. The petitioners were initially 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 on July 1, 2019, directing a review of these promotions, citing the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015, which came into effect in 2015. The petitioners argued that the 2015 Rules should not be applied retrospectively to promotions made under the old rules.

Held

The High Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original applications. The Court reasoned that promotions must be made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions, which in this case were the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The petitioners had been promoted dehors the statutory provisions of the 2015 Rules, and therefore, the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC. The Court noted that the review DPC had not been held at the time of the judgment, meaning there was no order of reversion yet, and thus the petitions were premature. The Court found that the judgments relied upon by the petitioners did not assist their case as there was no existing cause of action, and the review DPC was yet to be held. The Court concluded that it found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The operative direction was that the writ petitions were dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in dismissing the original applications filed by the petitioners, thereby upholding the direction for a review of promotions based on the Recruitment Rules of 2015, when the promotions were made under the Recruitment Rules of 2003? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the 2015 Recruitment Rules, which redesignated the post of Senior Tax Assistant to Executive Assistant, should not be applied retrospectively to promotions already made under the 2003 Rules. They relied on judgments from the Supreme Court in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. and Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., and a High Court judgment in Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors., to support their claim that their existing promotions should not be disturbed without proper procedure. Revenue's contention: The Union of India contended that promotions must be made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions, and the 2015 Recruitment Rules were the only applicable rules for promotions to the post of Executive Assistant. They argued that the vacancies were for recruitment years 2016, 2017, and 2018, and therefore, the 2015 Rules were rightly applied. The respondents argued that the impugned order permitting a review DPC was justified.