All India Federation Of Central Excise vs Union Of India

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(SC) 1975

1997(6) Supreme 197
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, K. Venkataswami and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
All India Federation of Central Excise etc. -Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 306 of 1988
With
(Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.1200/88, 1093/90, C.M.P. No. 9014/88 in W.P. (C) Nos. 4532-33/78, C.M.P. No. 16033/89, I.A. No. 10/91)
Decided on 22-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Yogeshwar Prasad, P.P. Malhotra, K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advocates, (K.T. Anantharaman) Advocate for Khaitan & Co., Ms. Rachna Gupta, P.K. Bajaj, (R. Vasudevan) Advocate (NP), A.K. Srivatava, P. Parmeshwaran, V.J. Francis, Ms. C. Ramamurthi, L.R. Singh, Ms. Anu Mohla, K.K. Mohan, S.K. Mehta, Probir Mitra, M.A. Krishnamoorthy, V. Balachandran, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law-Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules 1987-Rule 18(2)-Constitutionality of-Challenged-Promotions to Group A posts-Determination of seniority of Group B Officers of different feeder cadres in their quota of promotion to entry grade of Assistant Collector/Senior Superintendent-Matters pending in this Court since 1988-Proposal submitted for resolving disputes-Proposal is equitable and fair-It takes care of legitimate interest of officers of all three feeder categories-Well founded reasons are given for ultimate solution given in the proposal-However, inter se seniority between direct recruit Appraisers and promotees should be finalised in light of judgment in Gaya Prakash case-To that extent, last portion in para 7 in proposal stands modified-Union of India is directed to amend impugned Rules so far as Group A service is concerned.
       Held : We find that the above modified proposal is just, fair and equitable and accordingly we direct the Union of India to amend the impugned Rules so far as Group A Service is concerned. Review all post-1979 ad hoc promotions to the post of Senior Superintendent/Assistant Collector in the promotee quota in the light of the present proposal, redetermine the respective placement of the promotee officers in the combined Group A seniority list and regularise accordingly the posts of ad hoc promotions. (Para 18)
       Further held : In Group A Service of the Customs and Excise Department, 50% of the cadre strength are filled by direct recruitment through Union Public Service Commission and the balance 50% are filled through promotion from Group B cadres. Group B officers when promoted to Group A Service, obviously have no right to occupy more than 50% of their prescribed quota. It would, therefore, be incumbent upon the Government to re-arrange or regularise the seniority list in Group A Service keeping the inter se quota of the direct recruits and promotees intact and should not allow either to get any promotion in excess of their quota. The ad-hoc promotions given to Group B officers in Group A Service, pursuant to interim orders of this Court, would not, therefore, have any effect or prejudice the interests or rights of the direct recruits of Group A Service while re-arranging the seniority in Group A Service as indicated in the judgment. It would, therefore, be of necessity that the Government should re-arrange their inter se seniority and promotions of the respective direct recruits and promotees within their quota and consequential promotions in further higher services. Their seniority arranged accordingly. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Venkataswami, J.-The petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 306 and 1200 of 1988 challenge the constitutionality of Rule 18(2) of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rule"). The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 1200/88 additionally challenge the list of seniority published on 22.8.1988 pending disposal of W.P. (C) No. 306/88. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No.1093/90 have prayed for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to make promotions strictly in accordance with law, namely, following Rules 19(2) and 20 of the 1987 Rules and based on the seniority list dated. 12.7.1984 and also for certain other connected reliefs.

2. Common arguments were addressed by counsel on both sides and, therefore, these writ petitions and connected interlocutory Applications are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Let us briefly state the background facts leading to the filing of these petitions.

4. The feeder cadre for promotion to Indian Customs and Central Excise. Group A Services are :

(a) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group B ;

(b) Superintendents of Customs (P), Group B ; and

(i) Recruited directly through UPSC, as.

(a) Non-experts on the basis of all-India Civil Services Exam., and

(b) Experts on the basis of specific requisitions placed with the UPSC, and;

(ii) Promoted from the Feeder-cadres of Customs Examiner.

5. The Group B posts in the feeder-cadres (a) and (b) above (i.e. Superintendents of Central Excise and Superintendents of Customs (P) are filled 100 per cent by promotion. Those in the feeder-cadre (c) above (i.e. Customs Appraisers) are filled 50 per cent by direct recruitment consisting of (c)(i) above and 50 per cent by promotion consisting of (c)(ii) above.

6. Prior to the coming into force of the 1987 Rules, promotions to Group A posts were given on the basis of the respective cadre strength of feeder categories. This manner of filling up the vacancies was challenged by a group of officers by filing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 4532-33/78 in this Court. Inter alia in the said Writ Petitions, the petitioners challenged promotions of 174 Superintendents of Central Excise and 10 Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) on the basis of penal prepared by the DPC Held in 1978. One of the main contentions raised in those Writ Petitions was that for promotion to Group A Service, all eligible officers belonging to three Group B feeder categories should be arranged in one common consideration list based on their continued length of service in B Group. It may be noted that when those Writ Petitions were pending, statutory rules were under-contemplation and factually were not there. This Court gave directions in those writ petitions fixing a time for framing the statutory rules. When this Court was informed about the framing of the rules, those writ petitions were disposed of on 23.9.1987 observing `the promotions now in dispute, will also be looked into with reference to the Rules and re-disposed of in accordance with law .

7. The petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 306 of 1988 were aggrieved by Rule 18 and hence they have challenged that Rule. Rule 18 is set out below :-

"18. Appointment by promotion to Grade VI of Service.-

(1) Appointment to the vacancies in Grade VI of the Service required to be filled by promotion under sub-rule 2(ii) of rule 5 shall be by promotion of the following categories of Group B officers in the Central Excise, Customs and Narcotics department who have completed three years regular service in the Group B posts of-

(a) Superintendents of Central Excise in the Central Excise, Department and District Opium Officer of Intelligence Officers or Superintendents (Executive) in the Narcotics Department.

(b) Appraisers of Customs in the Customs Department.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1975

Cases Referred (1)