SANJAY PANDEY Vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for quashing the order dated 12.11.2013, passed by the respondent/CBDT, declining to promote them w.e.f. 23.9.2010, the date when the DPC was held.

(2.) On 24.9.2014, it was recorded that the petitioners, who were working on the post of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, have a grievance that the respondent/CBDT has violated the order dated 6.7.2012 passed by the Division Bench in a batch of writ petitions filed by them, including WP(C)No.8017/2010 filed against the order dated 2.11.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. On the aforesaid date, learned counsel for the petitioners was requested to address arguments on the maintainability of the present petition as the petitioners have approached the High Court directly, when as per the guidelines in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors, 1997 3 SCC 261, in the first instance, their remedy lies before the Tribunal, since respondent/CBDT, being a part of the Central Government, comes under its jurisdiction. Learned counsel had sought an adjournment to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspect and address arguments.

(3.) Today, Mr. Rajpal, learned counsel for the petitioners states that once notice to show cause was issued in the present petition on 30.5.2014, this Court is precluded from raising the question of maintainability of the petition or going into the issue of lack of jurisdiction for the reason that any such decision would amount to reviewing the order dated 30.5.2014, which is impermissible in law. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) and Anr., 1997 10 SCC 258.