GIRINDRA NATH HALOI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of challenge in the instant proceedings is the judgment and order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Original Application No. 114/2003 sustaining the challenge of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein to the order dated 19.9.2002 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong whereby the petitioners as well as the Respondent Nos. 9 to 23 (names deleted as sought for by the petitioners vide order dated 28.10.2011) were promoted to the Grade of Superintendent Group-B under the official respondents. We have heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S. Das, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts indispensable for dealing with the issues involved are that the petitioners and the private respondents were initially appointed as direct recruits in the cadre of Inspector in the Shillong Commissionerate under the official respondents. Following a decision to effect restructuring of the Customs and Excise Department (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'Department'), 150 posts of Superintendent Group-B were created in the Shillong Commissionerate. In the same process, 115 posts of Inspectors were reduced. Subsequent thereto, the concerned Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'DPC') initiated a process for promotion to these newly created posts of Superintendent Group-B and in the proceeding that followed, it considered the case of the eligible incumbents in the cadre of Inspector who were within the zone of consideration and on the basis of the recommendations made it, by the aforesaid order dated 29.9.2002, 149 candidates including the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 9 to 23 (names deleted vide order dated 28.10.2011, as sought for) were promoted thereto. Admittedly, the post of Inspector is in the feeder cadre for promotion to that of Superintendent Group-B. Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 not being recommended were not promoted.

(3.) Being aggrieved, Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 approached the learned Tribunal assailing this order of promotion alleging their supersession by the candidate juniors to them the existing seniority list in the cadre of Inspector. They alleged as well, that in the process there had been over utilisation of the quota of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. The learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 114/2003 that was registered on this impugnment, by its decision dated 26.2.2004 interfered with the order dated 29.9.2002 whereupon the official respondents approached this Court with WP (C) No. 5820/2004. This petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 13.05.2008 whereby the matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Though this Court noticed the rival contentions as above, it as such did not decide the issues raised on merit and interfered with the adjudication of the learned Tribunal for want of necessary particulars of the posts or number of existing posts and further, details relating thereto having a bearing on the decision making process. Before this Court, the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein had also raised a new plea that as 150 posts of Superintendent Group-B were the yield of the process of restructuring, no reservation policy could be applied in the exercise of filling up the same and thus on that count as well, the impugned promotions awarded to the petitioners and the Respondents Nos. 9 to 23 (names deleted vide order dated 28.10.2011) were non est in law.