Shri Sanal G 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 01.07.2019, directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to be held, considering the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non Gazetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The petitioners argued that their promotions were valid under the old rules and challenged the review DPC. The CAT dismissed their applications, finding that promotions must strictly adhere to the statutory provisions of the 2015 Recruitment Rules.

Held

The High Court held that the promotions were made dehors the statutory provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Court found that the Government of India was justified in directing a review DPC to be held to ensure promotions are made strictly in consonance with the statutory provisions of the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The Court noted that the stage of reversion had not yet arrived, and the review DPC had not been held. Therefore, the petitions were considered premature. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The reasoning was that promotions must adhere to the rules in force at the relevant time, and the 2015 Rules were applicable for the vacancies in question. The judgments cited by the petitioners were distinguished as not applicable to the present facts, particularly because no reversion had occurred and the review DPC was pending.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions made under the Recruitment Rules of 2003 are valid, or if the Recruitment Rules of 2015 should be applied retrospectively for promotions to the post of Executive Assistant? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that their promotions were made in accordance with the prevailing Recruitment Rules of 2003 at the time of their appointment and subsequent promotions. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.* to argue that they could challenge actions even before reversion takes place, and on the Manipur High Court judgment in *Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors.* to assert their right to an opportunity of hearing if reversion were to occur. They also cited *Vijay Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.* regarding non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's Argument: The Union of India argued that the vacancies were for recruitment years 2016, 2017, and 2018, and therefore, only the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which came into existence in 2015, could be applied. They contended that promotions were made dehors the statutory provisions of the 2015 Rules, justifying the direction for a review DPC.