Judgment
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 1 2025:KER:26734 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2019 IN OA NO.698 OF 2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER:
A.LAKSHMIKANTHAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. A. ARUNACHALAM, SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, O/O.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, I.S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, O/O. THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE, COIMBATORE ZONAL UNIT, COIMBATORE(ON DEPUTATION), RESIDING AT 2E, GOOD HOME (MANI MAHAL) APARTMENTS, SOWRIPALAYAM, ROAD, PULIYAKULAM, COIMBATORE-45.
BY ADV SRI.SHAFIK M.A.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI.
2 THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
3 THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, IS PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682018.
BY ADV SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 2 2025:KER:26734 JUDGMENT Amit Rawal, J.
The present OP is directed against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.3.2019 in OA No.698 of 2017 whereby the claim of the petitioner laying challenge to the Annexure.A1 order dated 3.4.2017 rejecting the case of consideration of promotion to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise from the post of direct recruit Inspector, has been rejected and upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy in brief are as under:
2. The petitioner-applicant was with effect from 25.4.1994 joined the service of the Central Excise after qualifying in the SSC recruitment. The next promotional post is Superintendent.
The case set up before the Tribunal was that though he had been considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent in 2006 but ought to have been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the meeting held on 26.7.2002 on the ground that there was a refusal by the Schedule Caste candidates and therefore, the DPC should have extended the panel and considered the name of the petitioner-applicant
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 3 2025:KER:26734 belonging to the scheduled caste category for promotion for the reason that there was a relaxation of one year for the purpose of consideration of the candidates who have rendered 8 years of service ie., 8+1=9 years.
3. The respondent in their counter had taken a stand that the subsequent recommendation of DPC held on 20.7.2004 was not implemented as it was under a stay in the Tribunal and even further review of 29.9.2004 with regard to the deemed sanction of 14 posts of the Superintendents with effect from 5.6.2002 was also not implemented in view of the stay order of the Tribunal in OA No.530 of 2004 which was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.22956 of 2007 and this Court had upheld one year relaxation in qualifying service granted by the Ministry vide instructions dated 18.6.2004. Therefore the last DPC held on 13.1.2016 to implement the recommendation of the review DPC meeting held on 29.9.2004 for promotion of Inspectors of Central Excise to the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise Group B.
But the fact remains that there was no scope for extended panel as the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste category had never refused for promotion prior to 26.7.2002.
4. The tribunal noticing the aforementioned contentions in paragraph 8 has held as under:
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 4 2025:KER:26734 It is seen from the records that DPC was conducted for 124 posts out of which 15 posts were regular and 109 for restructuring vacancies. Thus, it is very clear that relaxation is a one time measure for the restructured vacancies alone. The DPC was delayed due to the stay granted by this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala had ultimately allowed to fill up the vacancies by relaxing the eligibility criteria for one year. As on 26.7.2002 DPC did not allow the extended panel on any account, refusal etc. As claimed by the applicant that he should have been considered against the refusal vacancies, we find that there was no refusal on the part of Scheduled Caste candidates prior to 26.7.2002 i.e. the date of the original DPC. Therefore, the extended panel has not been drawn and only 124 vacancies were taken into account for promotion.
5. Mr.Shafi M. Abdulkhadir has drawn our attention to Ext.R1(a), the exhibit relied upon by the respondents in counter affidavit filed in these proceedings to justify that there was a refusal. However the refusal was in respect of the subsequent vacancies which have occurred ie., post 26.7.2002 and not prior to. Whereas the case of the applicant-petitioner was for consideration of the promotion in respect of the vacancy occurred in 26.7.2002. In the absence of any refusal of the candidates senior to the petitioner, petitioner could not have been promoted but the fact remains he had in the year 2006
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 5 2025:KER:26734 promoted as Superintendent. We do not find any illegality and perversity. No ground for interference is made out. Petition is dismissed.
SD/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE SD/- sab K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 6 2025:KER:26734 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 155/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.180/698/2017 FILED BEFORE THE C.A.T.
Exhibit P1 (A1) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER C.NO.II/39/1/2016 PT. I-CONF.CX/481/17 DATED 3.4.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1 (A2) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.2201/1/90-ESTT.
(D) DATED 22.4.92 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T.
Exhibit P1 (A3) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A60011/24/2003-AD-IIB DATED 18.6.2004 ISSUED BY THE CBEC.
Exhibit P1 (A4) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DPC DATED 26.7.2002.
Exhibit P1 (A5) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.22011/2/2014- ESTT.D DATED 30.1.2015 KSSUED BY THE DOP & T.
Exhibit P1 (A6) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DPC DATED 20.7.2004.
Exhibit P1 (A7) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DPC DATED 29.9.2004.
Exhibit P1 (A8) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE DPC DATED 13.12.2016.
Exhibit P1 (A9) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.1/3/69-ESTT (D) DATED 22.11.1975 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T.
Exhibit P1 (A10) TRUE COPY OF THE OM NO.22011/18/87-ESTT (D) DATED 7.4.1996 ISSUED BY THE DOP & T.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.NO.180/689/2017.
OP (CAT) NO. 155 OF 2019 7 2025:KER:26734 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN O.A.NO.180/698/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2019 OF THE C.A.T IN O.A.NO.180/698/2017.
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE REVIEW DEPARTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25/06/2007.