UNION OF INDIA Vs. N R PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Ahmedabad Bench ('CAT' for short) in O.A. Nos.92 of 2003 and 123 of 2003 is under challenge in both the petitions. The first-mentioned petition is filed by the Union of India through the Chairman. Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Secretary of Ministry of Finance and the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad; whereas the second petition is filed by five direct recruit inspectors working in the income-tax department. The matters have been finally heard at great length at the admission stage itself at the behest of the parties.

(2.) By the impugned judgment, the CAT has, in the applications made by a direct recruit Income-Tax Inspector ('ITI for short) and several promotee ITIs. quashed the seniority list dated 25.3.2003 of ITIs of Gujarat Region and directed the department not to disturb the seniority already assigned to the ITIs in the seniority lists published in 1996 and 2000, In short, in this triangular lis among the direct recruits (DRs). the departmental prorcotees (DPs) and the Income-Tax Department, the central issue is whether, complying with the quota and rota rules, seniority of the DRs should be reckoned on the basis of the year in which the vacancies arose, or the year in which the selection process was initiated, or the year in which the candidates were selected. or the year in which they were actually appointed.

(3.) It appears that the very sane issue was agitated before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. No.2307 of 1999 and others in which, by the decision dated 23.2.2000, it was held by the Tribunal that direct "recruits are entitled to seniority from the date of their selection by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and not from the date of their appointment. When that decision was challenged before the Delhi High Court in C.M.P. No.4604 of 2000 and others, it was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in view of the advice and clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT). It was stated at the Bar that the original application so remanded was subsequently withdrawn.