Back
1999(2) Supreme 322
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
K. Venkataswami, G.B. Pattanaik and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
All India Federation of Central Excise -Petitioner
versus
The Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
I.A. Nos. 4, 6-8
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 306 of 1988
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 651 of 1997
Decided on 22-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ms. Shyamala Pappu, M.N. Krishnamani, A.K. Ganguli, P.P. Rao, Rakesh Diwedi, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Anoop Choudhary, Sr. Advocates, (Suman J. Khaitan), Advocate for M/s. Khaitan & Co., M.R. Krishnamurthy, G. Dewansi, Ashok K. Mahajan, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, S.C. Parija, Debasish Mohanty, J.R. Das, Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Vimla Sinha, L.R. Singh, Dev H. Sobhani, (In-person), Ashok K. Srivastava, P. Parmeswaran, V.K. Verma, Advocates.
Held : It will be noticed from para 4 of the above proposals of the Government of India dated 8.6.89 that as between the Excise Department Officers and the Customs Department Officers, the promotions from Group B to Group A are to be in the ratio of 2:1 or 6:3, that is to say, 6 will go to promotees from Central Excise Superintendents Group B, thereafter, out of the next 3 promotions meant for the Customs Department, one will go to Superintendents (P) Customs and 2 to Customs Appraisers Group B. The order of the promotions is also set out in the ratio of 6:1:2 between Superintendents Excise, Superintendents (P) Customs and Appraisers, Customs, namely first 6, then one and lastly two, respectively from these three feeder channels, Para 6:1 refers to the factual aspect of the Central Excise Superintendents Group A-promoted from Central Excise Superintendent Group B-retiring frequently. Para 6.3 gives an example as to how the vacancies in Group A, as and when they arise, are to be filled. In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention of the Writ Petitioners that at all times Group A posts must contain a ratio of 6 promotees of Central Excise Superintendents Group B for every 9 Group A posts. Such an intention does not follow from para 4 or para 6.1 of the proposals dated 8.6.89 or the Rules as amended in 1998. (Paras 8 & 9)
On a fair reading of the whole of para 4, that was all the purport of para 4 and it was never intended in the said para 4 that in the promoted category of Group A officers, there should always be 6 promotees from Excise Superintendents, Group B for every 9 posts in Group A. There is no doubt a reference in para 6.1 to the frequent retirements of those Group A officers who are promoted from the category of Excise Superintendents Group B but that fact, in our opinion, has been referred there for the limited purpose of giving precedence to the Excise Superintendents Group B for promotion to the first 6 vacancies in Group A, in every cycle of 9 vacancies. It is no where stated in para 6.1 that because of such retirement of Excise Superintendents Group B on promotion to Group A, every such vacancy is to be filled only by promotion of another officer from Central Excise Superintendents Group B. (Paras 10 & 11)
The result is that once officers from these three feeder categories are promoted to Group A, they cease to have their birthmarks of Group B in the promoted category of Group A. There would then be no question of filling up a vacancy in Group A created by the retirement of a promotee Excise Superintendent Group B by another officer from the same group. This is because, once promoted to Group A, the identity of the feeder channel from which they are promoted ceases to exist. (Para 12)
The procedure indicated in the Government of India’s proposals dated 8.6.89 in para 6.3 appears to us to be the correct one. We have already referred to it. It says that if vacancies arise in the Group A posts (towards the 50 quota of promotees as distinct from 50 quota for direct recruits to Group A) they are to be filled up from among the three feeder categories, the first six vacancies by Superintendents Central Excise in Group B, the seventh vacancy Customs (P) Superintendents and the eight and ninth the Customs Appraiser group. That completes one cycle. The further vacancies as and when they arise in Group A are to be filled again by following the same procedure. (Para 17)
Further held : There was a grievance raised by the writ petitioners that pending consideration of names by the UPSC for promotion to Group A, adhoc promotions have been made to Group A and members from the first feeder category, namely, Superintendents of Excise Group B were not promoted. This was particularly so after the earlier judgment. In other words, the complaint is that for the said adhoc promotions, the quota rule of 6:1:2 has not been followed. The answer of the Union of India in this behalf is that it has been found that earlier there have been excess promotions to Group A from the petitioners’ category of Excise Superintendents Group B and, therefore, presently, more officers from the other two feeder channels have been promoted on an adhoc basis so that there will be no imbalance when the final review takes place. Even assuming that for purposes of adhoc promotions it would have been fair to follow the ratio of 6:2:1, the respondents have shown adequate justification for not following the said ratio while making adhoc promotions. Thus if one of these groups in the quota has had more promotions earlier and if the Government of India wants to off-set the said advantage, such an action cannot be said to be unfair. (Para 18)
Judgment
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-We have before us writ petition-W.P. 651 of 1997 and certain Interlocutory Applications bearing Nos. IA 4, 6 to 8 filed in an earlier Writ Petition No. 306 of 1988. The said W.P. No. 306 of 1988 was disposed of by this Court by Judgment dated 22.11.1996 All India Federation of Central Excise v. Union of India1. Aggrieved by certain subsequent events, various parties have filed the writ petitions and I.As.
2. For the purpose of appreciating the disputes in these matters, it is necessary to set out the following facts:
The feeder categories for promotion to the posts in Group A services constituting the Indian Customs and Central Excise (Group A) Service are:
(a) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group B (which consists of all promotees from lower cadres;
(b) Superintendents of Customs (P) Group B (again all promotees from lower cadres); and
(c) (i) Customs Appraisers Group B (consisting of officers directly recruited through UPSC;
(ii) Promotees from the feeder-cadres of Customs Examiners in ratio of 50:50).
3. During the pendency of the earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 306 of 1988, the Government of India came forward with certain proposals dated 8.6.1989 to resolve the long standing grievances of various groups of officers and to shorten litigation. This Court heard all the parties and their respective views on these proposals and accepted them. So far as the inter-se dispute between the two sub-categories in the third feeder category (c) was concerned-namely promotee and direct recruit Customs Appraisers Group B, it was stated that the decision in Gagan Bakshi Yadav v. Union of India2 would govern. In respect of promotion to Group A posts from all the three feeder groups, (a), (b) and (c) it was agreed that the proposals of the Government of India dated 8.6.89 would govern. Under those proposals a new quota rule of 6:1:2 was to apply to these three feeder channels in Group B for promotion to Group A. This Court observed that the proposals were just fair and equitable and accordingly, the Union of India should amend the Rules so far as promotion to Group A service was concerned and review all post-1979 adhoc promotions to the posts of Senior Superintendent/Assistant Collector. This exercise was limited to the promotee quota of 50 of Group A posts from the three feeder channels because the remaining 50 in Group A was to be filled by direct recruitment. Certain other consequential directions were also given. The Writ Petition stood disposed of in terms of the said directions by Judgment dated 22.11.1996.
4. As stated in the counter-affidavit of the Union of India, thereafter, Rule 18 of the Rules was amended on 23.3.1998 by the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A (Amendment) Rules, 1998. Subsequently, the All India seniority List of Superintendents of Customs (P) and Superintendents of Central Excise in Group A on the basis of their continuous length of service in Group B was issued. The seniority list of Customs Appraisers was also revised from 1961 and a final seniority list was published. In addition, a proposal for review of 1979 promotions was also started by requesting the UPSC to convene a meeting of the DPC for reviewing the ad hoc promotees from 1980 onwards various other stages of review of the promotions at the level of Assistant Commissioner (Group A) and Deputy Commissioner were referred to in the counter affidavit of the Government of India. After the review of all promotions is completed, it was proposed to bring about a final list of Assistant Commissioners by interpolating the Direct recruit Officers in Group A and the promotees from Group B, as promoted from the three feeder categories. But meantime, in view of the delay in the review to be done by the UPSC, it had become necessary to make further ‘ad hoc’ promotions to Group A posts. As the bulk of these adhoc promotions
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
