Nilesh K A vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, who are employees in the Central Tax department, were promoted to the post of Executive Assistant. The promotions were made based on vacancies for the years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Subsequently, the Government of India issued a memorandum on July 1, 2019, stating that these promotions were made contrary to the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The memorandum directed that corrective action be taken, considering the Recruitment Rules and Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) guidelines. 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 granted to the petitioners were made contrary to the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015. The Court found that the Government of India was justified in directing a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to reconsider the promotions in light of the 2015 Recruitment Rules. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had been promoted dehors the statutory provisions. It was noted that a review DPC had not yet been held, meaning there was no order of reversion at that stage, and thus the writ petition was premature. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, stating they did not apply to the present situation where a review DPC was yet to be held. The Tribunal was therefore justified in dismissing the original applications.

Key Issues

1. Whether the promotions granted to the petitioners as Executive Assistants were in accordance with the Central Excise and Customs Department, Executive Assistant (Group 'B', Non-Gezetted posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were entitled to challenge the potential reversion, drawing parallels to a Supreme Court case (Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam) where a process of appointment was challenged before any appointment was made. They also relied on a Manipur High Court judgment (Ashok Kumar Rana) regarding the necessity of an opportunity of hearing before reversion, and a Supreme Court case (Vijay Kumar) concerning non-communication of adverse ACRs. Revenue's contention: The revenue 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 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.