SHARATH KUMAR RATH; SAROJ KUMAR SADANGI AND PARAMESWARAN SATYAM; T S JAYACHANDAR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE; A CLETUS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P. Nos. 39564, 39583 & 26975 of 2005 have been filed against the common order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tr ibunal") in O.A. Nos. 408, 419 and 566 of 2005 respectively. O.A. No. 408 of 2005 was filed by one T.S. Jayachander, presently working as Deputy Commissioner of Customs. O.A. No. 419 of 2005 was filed by the Chennai Customs Appraising Officers' Association, represented by its Secretary along with three other applicants, namely, Parvathi Kailasam, T.H. Rao, Bertsie Sundaram, who are also working presently as Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. O.A. No. 566 of 2005 was filed by Sharat Kumar Rath, Saroj Kumar Sadangi and Parameswaram Satyam, who are working as appraisers. In O.A. Nos. 408 & 419 of 2005, the Union of India and the Chief Commissioner of Customs were arrayed as Respondents 1 & 2 and in O.A. No. 566 of 2005 they were arrayed as Respondents 1 & 3. The Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs was not arrayed as Respondent in O.A. Nos. 408 & 419 of 2005, but was arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in O.A. No. 566 of 2005. In such O.A., there was no other private respondent, whereas in O.A. Nos. 408 and 419 of 2005, four Deputy Commissioners of Customs were arrayed as Respondent Nos. 3 to 7. All such applicants, who are the writ petitioners in three writ petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 39564, 39583 & 26975 of 2005, are promotee appraisers under the Customs Department, whereas Respondents 3 to 7 in O.A. Nos. 408 & 419 of 2005 are the direct recruit appraisers. For convenience, the applicants/writ petitioners in three Writ Petitions, namely, W.P. Nos. 26975, 39564 & 39583 of 2005 are referred to as "the promotees" and the private respondents in O.A. Nos. 408 & 419 of 2005 are referred to as " the direct recruits", whereas Union of India and other subordinate officials are referred to as "the official respondents".

(2.) The main question in all the writ petitions relates to question of seniority in the cadre of Appraisers in Custom House, Chennai. The perennial fight is between direct recruits and the promotees. The fight for the first time reached the Supreme Court about four decades back. The Supreme Court at that stage was concerned with the Rules and Procedure relating to recruitment and seniority of direct recruits and promotees on the basis of executive instructions. The question related to seniority of those appraisers who are appointed from 15.8.1947. Ultimately, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in (Mervyn Coutinho v. Collector of Customs), held that quota system was operating rotationally and seniority should be followed on the basis of quota and rotation, irrespective of continuous length of service of the promotees. In the meantime, the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution known as the Customs Appraisers Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, came into effect. Rules 3 & 4 of 1961 Rules, being relevant, are extracted hereunder :-

(3.) The salient feature of the said Rules is that no particular quota was fixed for the promotees but, as per Rule 4(c) of the Rules, at least 50% of the vacancies are to be filled up by the direct recruits and the rest could be filled up from other sources including promotion. The effect of 1961 Rules on the question of seniority was directly in issue in Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India and Ors. . Since such decision is the basis of the contention (or rather, the bone of contention) for both the parties, it is more appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the judgment :-