Challenge by Central Excise Inspector on Illegality in allocation of Zone of Posting After Years Delay is Not Acceptable: Gauhati HC Sets Aside Order [Read Order]

In a significant case, the Gauhati High Court set aside order which allowed the challenge by Central Excise Inspector on illegality in allocation of zone of posting after years delay. It was found by the court that the respondent inspector was allotted Shillong Zone in the year 2004 but he has never raised any grievance about such allotment till 2014 and for that, no explanation has been offered by him. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati ( “Tribunal”) filed the writ petition. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred on behalf of Anil Kumar Sharma, the respondent No.1 and has directed the petitioners herein more particularly, the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) to take earnest initiative for streamlining the Rule and Regulation in case of Inspector as well as the Superintendent in order to maintain equality and rationality with reasonableness and to defuse the genuine heartburning/ deprivation amongst the employees in the matter of promotion. Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register The Tribunal has further directed that the petitioners shall review the entire issue on the basis of the principle that the “seniority of merit” shall not be disturbed while making the next promotion to the employees and to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Superintendent by convening a DPC and if he is found fit, he shall be promoted to such post at least from the date of his junior Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted. The Tribunal has further observed that the entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, it was made clear that the order shall not be treated as precedent for the others. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) of the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions has issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise, Income Tax, etc., 1996. The respondent No.1 applied for the said post for which written examination was held on 28.04.1996 on zonal basis. In the meantime, it appears that the action of the Staff Selection Commission for recruiting the candidates through the scheme of zone-wise selection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, however, the same was dismissed. Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register Thereafter the matter went up to the Supreme Court, wherein the Supreme Court, vide judgment while striking down the scheme of zone-wise selections, observed that the zonal-wise selection cannot be permitted as various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks than those who are selected from other zones, would be deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discrimination. It was also held that there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, i.e. the selection of the best candidates. It was further held that the process of selection, i.e. zone-wise selection, is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Pursuant to the above direction, re-examination was held for recruitment of Inspector General, Excise, Income Tax, etc. 1996 on 13.06.1999. The result of the said re-examination was declared on 03.04.2000 and thereafter the personality test was conducted and result of which was declared on 05.01.2002. The respondent No.1 was selected in the said selection and was provided posting at Shillong Commissionerate vide order dated 26.04.2004 and he joined as Inspector in Shillong Zone on 07.06.2024. In the year 2014, the respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal with a grievance that vide order dated 30.09.2014 issued by the Additional Commissioner (CCO), Office of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Vadodara Zone, one Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted to the grade of Superintendent of Central Excise (Group ‘B’) though he was junior to the respondent No.1 in the All India Merit List of 1996. He has also claimed that several other Inspectors, who are also junior to the respondent No.1 in the All India merit list, were also promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Excise on 30.09.2014 and by subsequent orders. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that as he has been denied promotion and his juniors have been promoted, he submitted several representations to the petitioners but the same have not been taken into consideration. Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register The Tribunal observed that the CBEC on its own has allocated Shillong Zone to the respondent No.1 without granting any opportunity to submit his option to opt on any zone. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that as the respondent No.1 is a resident of Bihar, which falls under the jurisdiction of Central Excise Cadre Controlling Zone Commissionerate, Ranchi/Patna, he could have been allotted to the Ranchi Zone, Patna Zone, Bhubaneswar Zone, Kolkata Zone or Lucknow Zone instead of Shillong Zone. While observing all these, the Tribunal has issued direction to the petitioners herein to convene a review DPC for the respondent No.1 and in case he is found fit, he shall be promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs at least form the date when his junior Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted. The Tribunal has also issued a direction to the CBEC to take earnest initiative for streamlining the Rules and Regulations in case of Inspectors as well as Superintendents. The division bench of Chief Justice Mr. Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair observed that though the respondent No.1 was posted in Shillong Zone on the post of Inspector in the year 2004, he has never raised any grievance regarding allocation of zone till 2014, i.e. when Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Customs in Vadodara Zone. Rule 4(1) of the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group ‘C’ Post) Recruitment Rules, 2002 provides that each Commissionerate shall have its own separate cadre, unless otherwise directed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. However, the validity of the said Rule has not been challenged by the respondent No.1 nor the criteria adopted by the Department of allocating the neighbouring Commissionerate on the basis of domicile and nearest to the hometown of the selected candidate, have been put to challenge by the respondent No.1. Small Business, Big Funding Opportunities - Click here to Register The claim of the respondent No.1 of committing illegality in allocation of the zone was hopelessly time barred as Section 21(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 clearly provides that an application to the Tribunal cannot be entertained unless the same is made within 1(one) year from the date on which final order has been passed. In the case of the respondent No.1, he was allotted Shillong Zone in the year 2004 but he has never raised any grievance about such allotment till 2014 and for that, no explanation has been offered by him. In such circumstances, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Mr. S.C. Keyal, counsel appeared for the petitioners. Mr. S. Dutta, senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Choudhury and Ms. R. Medhi, counsel appeared for the respondent No.1. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates