DIPTI BHUYAN DAS Vs. MANORANJAN CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 10.8.2000 passed by the learned Assam Administrative Tribunal ('the Tribunal') has been put to challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid order the learned Tribunal, on the grounds assigned, has set aside the order dated 7.4.1998 promoting the petitioner to the post of Inspector of Taxes on ad-hoc basis as well as the order dated 27.5.1999 regularising the said promotion with effect from 7.4.1998. The learned Tribunal, by its aforesaid impugned order, had further directed for the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Upper Division Assistant. It may be noticed, at this stage that by order dated 30.8.2000 while entertaining this writ petition, a restraint was put on the operation of the order passed by the learned Tribunal. By virtue of the aforesaid interim order passed by the Court the petitioner continues to hold the post of Inspector of Taxes till date.

(2.) As the issues involved in the writ pertain to the validity of the promotion of the writ petitioner to the post of Inspector of Taxes made under the provisions of the Assam Taxation Service Rules, 1995, particularly those pertaining to promotion from the ministerial staff, it may be convenient to notice, at this stage, the relevant provisions of the Rules in force. Under rule 5(vi) of the Rules recruitment against one fourth of the cadre strength of Inspector of Taxes is required to be made by promotion from the ministerial staff working under the Commissioner of Taxes. The eligibility criteria for such promotion is prescribed by rule 11 of the Rules. Sub-clause (f) of Rule 11 has prescribed that for promotion from the ministerial staff to the cadre of Inspector, an incumbent must have meritorious service for a minimum period of 10 years out of which at least one year should be in the post of Upper Division Assistant. The incumbent is not required to exceed 45 years of age on the 1st day of Jan. of the Year in which promotion is considered. Under Rule 12(1) of the Rules before the end of each calendar year the appointing authority is required to make an assessment of the likely number of vacancies that are required to be filled up by promotion in the next year. Thereafter, the records of the eligible candidates are required to be sent to the duly appointed Selection Committee. The said committee is required to make the necessary selection by following the principle of merit with due regard to seniority. After the select list is finalised by the committee, the appointing authority, after according its approval, is required to forward the same to the Public Service Commission and once approval is granted by the Public Service Commission the select list is to become final by publication in the Gazette and remain in force for a period of 12 months from the date of approval by the Commission.

(3.) Both the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No. 1 at the relevant point of time, were holding the post of Upper Division Assistant under the Commissioner of Taxes. There is no dispute that in the cadre of Upper Division Assistant the writ petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 1. A selection committee meeting was convened and held on 19.12.1997 for the purpose of recommending candidates for promotion to the post of Inspector from the quota earmarked for the ministerial staff. The selection committee, in its deliberations held on 19.12.1997, took into account two vacancies against the ministerial quota that was likely to occur on 30.9.1997 and 3.10.1997 on the superannuation of the serving incumbents. The committee also took into account one anticipated vacancy in the cadre of Inspector falling to the quota of the ministerial staff. The said anticipated vacancy was in respect of one Chunilal Das who was recommended for promotion to the higher post of Superintendent of Taxes by the selection committee which held its meeting on 27.3.1997. From the proceedings of the selection committee meeting dated 19.12.1997, as available on record, it is also clear that, out of the three vacancies including the anticipated vacancy for which deliberations were held, one post was required to be filled up against the ministerial quota of the year 1995.