KRISHAN DASS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for the sake of brevity and convenience referred to as 'the Tribunal'), being aggrieved against the orders of their reversion from the post of Inspector of Income Tax to Tax Assistants. Accordingly, it was prayed that the said orders be quashed and they be permitted to continue on the post of Inspector with all benefits.

(2.) The case set out by the petitioners, in brief, for consideration before the Tribunal was that petitioner no. 1 joined the respondent Department as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in March 1984 and was promoted as Tax Assistants in the year 1991. He qualified the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 1990 and he was to be considered for promotion against the quota meant for promotion out of 50% vacancies reserved for the candidates passing the departmental examination. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) approved the name of petitioner no. 1 for promotion in the passing-wise list and he was accordingly promoted on regular basis, vide order dated 28.08.2001. Likewise, petitioner no. 2 joined as UDC in January 1983 and was promoted to the post of Tax Assistants in October 1990. As in the case of petitioner no. 1, petitioner no. 2 was also approved by DPC and was accordingly promoted as Inspector vide order dated 18.09.2001. Since, while making promotions, a large number of Scheduled Castes (SC) employees were ignored by the DPC, they approached the Tribunal assailing the action of the department by filing OAs. However, in the meanwhile, the Department had taken a decision to hold the Review DPC, vide order dated 3/4.12.2001. All the Oas, thus, were dismissed being infructuous on 12.12.2001. The Department was accordingly directed to hold the review DPC within three months. It was pursuant to the exercise carried out by the Review DPC that the petitioners were reverted from the post of Inspector to that of the Tax Assistants, vide order dated 21.01.2002.

(3.) In short, the grievance expressed by the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they having already been promoted against SC quota on the basis of seniority, could not have been reverted. It was also their case that before their reversion was ordered, no show cause notice was afforded to them. Still further, it was stated that under the Income Tax Department (Inspector) Rules, 1969, two select-lists i.e. "seniority-wise" and "passing-wise" are required to be prepared for the purpose of promotion to the post of Inspector. It was their claim that both the petitioners were approved by the DPC for promotion in the "passing-wise" list and were accordingly promoted on regular basis.