The High Court of Delhi, upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT)’s order quashing promotion lists for the post of Tax Assistant in the Income Tax Department, which were prepared based on the date of passing the data-entry skill test.

Sachin Amar Kholwad and Ors, petitioner-assessee, approached the Court against the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the CAT. The present OA was filed after the Ministry of Finance issued the Recruitment Rules, 2015 for Tax Assistant (Group C) posts, replacing the earlier 2003 Rules.

As per the 2015 Rules, 25% of the posts were to be filled by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. For promotion, employees in Group 'C' with five years of regular service, who had passed matriculation and a data-entry skill test, were eligible.

The official respondents made promotions based on an Instruction dated 13.04.2005, which was aligned with the old 2003 Rules. However, respondent nos. 5 to 27 challenged this, arguing that the 2005 Instruction became irrelevant after the 2015 Rules came into force. They also referred to a CBDT letter dated 28.06.2019 supporting their view and claimed that recasting the seniority list based on the date of passing the promotional course was against the 2015 Rules.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

The petitioners, on the other hand, maintained that the 2005 Instruction continued to apply even after the 2015 Rules. Accordingly, they had prepared eligibility lists in 2021 and 2023 based on the dates of passing the computer skill test.

The CAT observed that the seniority list between the petitioners and respondents was still unsettled and under consideration. Based on this, it allowed the OA with directions.

The petitioners’ counsel argued that the 2005 Instruction had been followed for a long time and should not have been ignored. She added that since many vacancies were still available, the petitioners should be adjusted instead of being reverted.

Comprehensive Guide of Law and Procedure for Filing of Income Tax Appeals, Click Here

In response, the counsel for respondent nos. 5 to 27 said the 2015 Rules introduced a new feeder cadre and only required passing the skill test. He said the Rules did not ask for seniority to be based on the date of passing the test and that the tribunal had only asked for a review DPC under the 2015 Rules, which needed no interference.

Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Renu Bhatnagar heard both sides and found that the 2015 Recruitment Rules did not require seniority to be based on the date of passing the departmental exam. Since the exam was only a qualifying requirement for promotion, the Court held that revising the seniority list on that basis was incorrect, arbitrary, and against the Rules. It agreed with the tribunal’s decision.

On the petitioners’ request not to be reverted if found unsuccessful in the Review DPC, the High Court said they were free to make a representation, which the official respondents should consider as per law along with the DPC results.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates