SUKHDEV CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is aggrieved by order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dismissing his original application wherein he sought for a direction upon the respondents to promote him as Commissioner of Income Tax purported to be pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC') held in October, 198 6/09/1987 and April, 1988 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit list as also the order dated 04.05.1998 passed by the Tribunal in R.A. No. 248 of 1997 whereby and whereunder it refused to review its earlier order.

(2.) The original application filed by the petitioner was heard by the Tribunal together with three other original applications and by judgment dated 20.01.1994, the Tribunal noticed that only question, which fell for its consideration, was whether promotion to the cadre of Commissioner of Income Tax was governed by the principle of 'selection on merit' or 'seniority subject to rejection of the unfit and unsuitable candidates'. The answer to the said question was rendered by the Tribunal in favour of the Department and against the employees holding that the selection to the said post was to be on merit and not on the basis of seniority alone.

(3.) The petitioner herein moved the Apex Court being aggrieved thereby and having regard to fact that a question arose, although no point was raised therein, that the petitione fulfilled the criteria of being considered for promotion by the DPC having been awarded the remarks 'good', but the same had not been followed and in view of the fact this identical question was pending consideration before the Tribunal in other original applications, by a judgment and order dated 12.02.1996, the said contention of the petitioner found favour with the Apex Court and the appeals were allowed stating :- "Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20/01/1994 passed in OA No. 4 of 1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. We have considered the principle to be followed for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax. It appears to us that such post of Commissioner is to be filled up only on the basis of selection on merit. Seniority-Cum-merit is not the criterion for such promotion. It has, however, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has earned remarks 'good' in his confidential character rolls and such remark had been accepted by the Departmental promotion committees as sufficient to give promotion on selection by merit and posts of Commissioner, Income Tax have been filled up in a large number of cases by accepting such gradation as sufficient. Unfortunately in the case of the appellant a different standard had been applied. The learned counsel has also submitted before us that before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi four other matters are pending where similar questions namely grading as 'good' whether entitles on incumbant for the promotion to the post Commissioner of Income Tax on selection on merit are to be considered. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in all such cases, a uniform policy should be followed in the matter of promotion by way of selection on merit. Accordingly, the case of the appellant should also be considered along with such pending matters so that different standard are not applied thereby doing injustices in some cases. Mrs. Gowri Shankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has very fairly submitted that the principle of selection on merit is to be strictly followed and the departmental promotion committee should also follow a uniform policy in all cases of promotion to the post of Commissioner on merit assessment by applying uniform gradation. He has also submitted that if the case of the appellant is considered along with other pending mattes before the Central Administrative Tribunal, by applying uniform gradation of the incumbents, he cannot possibly raise any objection. Considering the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and sending the matter back before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, so that the case of the appellant is considered by it along with other pending matters. We make it clear that the promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax is to be given only on the basis of merit assessment and not on other consideration, even if a different criterion had been followed in past. The Central Administrative Tribunal in considering OA-4/92 since remitted back to the Tribunal and other pending matters, should ensure that in all cases of promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, a similar standard is made applicable. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The Civil Appeal No. 4173 of 1996 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 7706/95) where similar question is involved, is also disposed of in similar terms)."