SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Facts : A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dealt with a batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the issue of the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers ( "ICT "). The High Court has come to the conclusion that the Central Excise and Customs Commissionerates Inspector (Central Excise, Preventive Officer and Examiner) Group 'B ' Posts Recruitment Rules 2016 ( "Recruitment Rules 2016 " or "RR 2016 ") do not contain any provision for ICTs and, on the contrary, stipulate that each Cadre Controlling Authority ( "CCA ") will have its own separate cadre, unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The High Court held that ICTs would violate the unique identity of each cadre envisaged under Rule 5 of RR 2016 and hence the circular withdrawing ICTs is not invalid. The judgment of the High Court has given rise to the batch of civil appeals.

(2.) The appellants are Inspectors of the Central Excise and Land Customs or, as the case may be, Goods and Services Tax Administration, who were allocated to different CCAs. Sec. 4 of the Customs Act 1962 provides that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ( "CBIC ") may appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be officers of customs. A similar provision is contained in Sec. 4 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 ( "CGST Act "), which states that:

(3.) On 29/11/2002, the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group C posts) Recruitment Rules 2002 [( "Recruitment Rules 2002 " or "RR 2002 ") Now referred to as Centra Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC)] were notified. RR 2002 trace the source of power to the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 4 was in the following terms: