UNION OF INDIA Vs. PUNDALIK PANDURANG KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 20/06/2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in Original Application No.428 of 2008 and a further order passed on 13/11/2018 in Review Petition No.21 of 2015, the Union of India has approached this Court assailing the said orders. It is the case of the petitioners that the Tribunal has committed a grave error and it has failed to appreciate the relevant facts and has arrived at a wrongful decision which requires to be rectifed by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Union of India also assailed the imposition of costs while rejecting the review petition on the ground that the said proceedings instituted were unwarranted.

(2.) Before referring to the decision of the Tribunal, we deem it expedient to briefy record the facts involved in the Original Application and review petition. The respondent - Pundalik P. Kale joined the Income Tax Department as Lower Division Clerk on 15/12/1976 and he subsequently came to be promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 15/03/1983, as Tax Assistant on 06/09/1993 and to the post of Inspector on 06/09/2001. The respondent found his name placed in the seniority list in the cadre of Income Tax Inspector ("ITI") prior to 01/09/2007 and he was placed at Sr. No.151. It is to be noted that the Inspector is the only feeder cadre for promotion to the grade of Income Tax Ofcer ("ITO") as there is no provision for direct recruitment in the cadre of ITO. For promotion to the post of ITO, an Inspector having put in a minimum of three years' service in the grade and having qualifed in the departmental examination is eligible for promotion.

(3.) The respondent had passed the departmental examination in the year 1999. A DPC for the ITOs for the year 2008-09 came to be held on 16/01/2008 for promotion to the grade of ITO. The respondent, being eligible, stood at Sr.No.24 of the eligibility list as he cleared the departmental examination for promotion to the grade of ITOs in the year 1999. He was, therefore, found to be eligible and his name was kept in the extended panel but it was not released since he was to be considered against the anticipated vacancies for the year 2008-09. In the meantime, a decision was taken to amend Rule VI of the Departmental Examination Rules for ITOs, 1998, wherein the minimum mark for clearing the ITO examination was reduced from 60% to 50% for the general category and 45% in case of SC/ST candidates. The facts disclose that in September, 2007, the departmental examination for the post of ITO was held and its result was declared on 13/06/2008. The said result of departmental examination is the bone of contention between the parties as original respondent Nos.5 to 7, who were Promoted with the petitioner as Income-tax inspector in the year 2001 appeared for the said departmental examination conducted in the year 2007. It is pertinent to note that after the departmental examination was conducted, the Rules for conduct of departmental examination in particular Rule VI came to be amended. It is to be noted that initially the said Rule prescribed qualifying marks of 60% to be obtained for being declared as passed in the said Examination. The original respondents passed the Examination, the result of which was declared on 13/06/2008.