The Gauhati High Court while allowing the petition of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) has held that the application challenging place of posting by central excise inspector to be made within one year.
The bench of Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair has held that though the respondent, central excise inspector was posted in Shillong Zone on the post of Inspector in the year 2004, he has never raised any grievance regarding allocation of zone till 2014, i.e. when Gyanesh Kumar was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs in Vadodara Zone.
Table of Contents
Background
The CBEC has challenged the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. The Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred on behalf of the central excise inspector and has directed the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) to take earnest initiative for streamlining the Rule and Regulation in case of Inspector as well as the Superintendent in order to maintain equality and rationality with reasonableness and to defuse the genuine heartburning/ deprivation amongst the employees in the matter of promotion.
The Tribunal has further directed that the CBEC shall review the entire issue on the basis of the principle that the “seniority of merit” shall not be disturbed while making the next promotion to the employees and to consider the case of the central excise inspector for promotion to the post of Superintendent by convening a DPC and if he is found fit, he shall be promoted to such post at least from the date of his junior Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted.
The Tribunal has observed that the entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, it was made clear that the order shall not be treated as precedent for the others.
The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) of the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions has issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise, Income Tax, etc., 1996. The central excise inspector applied for the post for which written examination was held on 28.04.1996 on zonal basis.
In the meantime, it appears that the action of the Staff Selection Commission for recruiting the candidates through the scheme of zone-wise selection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, however, the same was dismissed.
The matter went up to theSupreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court in case of Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. -Vs- Union of Indian & Ors. while striking down the scheme of zone-wise selections, observed that the zonal-wise selection cannot be permitted as various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks than those who are selected from other zones, would be deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discrimination.
It was also held that there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, i.e. the selection of the best candidates. It was further held that the process of selection, i.e. zone-wise selection, is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
As per the direction of the Supreme Court re-examination was held for recruitment of Inspector General, Excise, Income Tax, etc. 1996 on 13.06.1999. The result of the said re-examination was declared on 03.04.2000 and thereafter the personality test was conducted and result of which was declared on 05.01.2002. The central excise inspector was selected in the selection and was provided posting at Shillong Commissionerate vide order dated 26.04.2004 and he joined as Inspector in Shillong Zone on 07.06.2024.
Court’s Analysis
The court quashed the tribunal’s order for 5 reasons.
Firstly, though the respondent was posted in Shillong Zone on the post of Inspector in the year 2004, he has never raised any grievance regarding allocation of zone till 2014, i.e. when Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs in Vadodara Zone.
Secondly, though the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Singh (supra) has ruled that zone-wise recruitment on the post of Inspector is not permissible but there is no direction from the Hon’ble Supreme Court to allocate the selected Inspectors the zones or Commissionerates as per their All India Merit.
Thirdly, Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group ‘C’ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002 provides that each Commissionerate shall have its own separate cadre, unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. However, the validity of the said Rule has not been challenged by the respondent nor the criteria adopted by the Department of allocating the neighbouring Commissionerate on the basis of domicile and nearest to the hometown of the selected candidate, have been put to challenge by the respondent.
Fourthly, the last person promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs in Shillong Zone was senior to the respondent in the zone-wise merit list of Shillong Zone and no person junior to the respondent was promoted in Shillong Zone.
Lastly, the claim of the respondent No.1 of committing illegality in allocation of the zone was hopelessly time barred as Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 clearly provides that an application to the Tribunal cannot be entertained unless the same is made within 1(one) year from the date on which final order has been passed. In the case of the respondent No.1, he was allotted Shillong Zone in the year 2004 but he has never raised any grievance about such allotment till 2014 and for that, no explanation has been offered by him.
Conclusion
The court allowed the writ petition filed by the CBEC.
Read More: Final Hearing Notice Not Received Is Not A Valid Ground: Cestat Dismisses Restoration Application
Case Details
Case Title: Union of India Versus Anil Kumar Sharma
Case No.: WP(C) NO.5866 OF 2021
Date: 22.11.2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Advocate S.C. Keyal
Counsel For Respondent: Senior Advocate S. Dutta
