Prashant 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. The Government of India, through a memorandum dated July 1, 2019, directed a review of these promotions, citing that they were made contrary to the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The petitioners challenged this memorandum before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed their applications. Aggrieved by the CAT's order, the petitioners filed these writ petitions before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the promotions to the post of Executive Assistant 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 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 petitioners, stating that the Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal case did not help as there was no cause of action at present, and the Ashok Kumar Rana case was not applicable as the stage of reversion had not been reached, and principles of natural justice would be followed if reversion became necessary. The judgment in Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. was also deemed not applicable. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions to the post of Executive Assistant were made in accordance with the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they were entitled to challenge the potential reversion, even before it occurred, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam and ors. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. They also cited Ashok Kumar Rana v. The Union of India and ors. for the principle that an opportunity of hearing must be given before reversion. Revenue's contention: The Union of India contended that the promotions were made contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015, which were in existence at the time of promotion for the vacancies of 2016-17 and 2017-18. They argued that only the 2015 Rules could have been applied, and therefore, a review DPC was justified. They also submitted that the judgment in Vijay Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. was not applicable as it dealt with non-communication of adverse ACRs, a contingency not present here.