Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Palshikar V.G. Munshi V.G., JJ.
All India Customs Officers (Direct Recruit)
Appraisers Association another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Union of India others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1324 of 2002 with Civil Application No. 2169 of 2002, decided on 19-12-2002.
Advocates appeared :
Ramamurthy Sr.A. with Saikumar Ramamurthy, for petitioner.
M.I. Sethana Sr.C. with K.B. Rao, for Union of India-respondents 1 to 3.
Vinay S. Masurkar, for respondent No. 4.
Ashok Dhamiji, for respondents 5 7.
Mohan A. Dharmaraj, for respondent No. 6.
C.J. Sawant, Sr.A., for respondent No. 8.
J.P. Cama, Sr.A. with K.P. Anilkumar, for respondent No. 9.
Customs and Central Excise Service (Group A) Rules, 1987 - Rule 18 - Challenge to constitutional validity of Rule 18 - Rule speci- fying ratio for promotion - Apex Court already held Rule 18 as proper - But directed state government to re-consider the ratio - It was objected because strength of other cadre had gone up too much - Held - Validity of Rule 18 already upheld - It could not be challenged before Tribunal - Non-com- pliance of directions of Apex Court by State Government cannot be gone into by CAT - Tribunal lacked proper jurisdiction to entertain petition. - What was directed by the Tribunal was to consider the question of change in the ratio. The Government considered it, found it unnecessary for the present, decided to do so as and when necessary in future and thus has executed the directions issued by the Tribunal by the order dated 10.7.2001. Even if Court assume that the order dated 10.7.2001 could be passed in face of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 and AIR 1998. The order as made by the Tribunal on 10.7.2001 has been fully implemented by the State and there is therefore no question of any contempt. The Tribunal therefore erred in seeking to exercise jurisdiction for punishment for contempt when none existed
Constitution of India - Articles 225 and 226 - Challenge to contempt notice - At High Court - Supreme Court already refused to interfere - High Court if interferes it will amount to a review of order of Tribunal - Held - Plea not tenable - Supreme Court simply refused to interfere, it did not go into the facts of case - Tribunal s order did not merge with order of Apex Court. - It was in these circumstances that the matter was taken to the Supreme Court of India by the State of Maharashtra. It was in the circumstances that the order was passed by the Supreme Court holding that the Tribunal did not have the power of review whether independently under the Act or under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. Because that order was not available for review and in view of the fact that the S.L.P. against the order was dismissed on merit by the Supreme Court. The order passed by the Tribunal on 6.3.1995 thus merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting S.L.P. on 25.8.1995 and therefore there is no order which could be reviewed under Order XLVII of C.P.C. or any other empowering provision in the Tribunals Act.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLVII - Contempt notice - Challenged in High Court - While Apex Court had itself refused to interfere - Plea that power to punish under Article 215 was co-ordinate to Tribunal and High Court - If High Court interferes it will amount to review of order of Tribunal - Held - Plea not tenable - Supreme Court had simply denied to interfere it had not considered the case - Order of Tribunal did not merge with orders of Apex Court. - During the pendency of that S.L.P., the respondent employee filed an application for review in the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal after receipt of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 25.8.1995 dismissing the S.L.P. reviewed its own order by order dated 2.11.1995 and set aside the order of dismissal. It was in these circumstances that the matter was taken to the Supreme Court of India by the State of Maharashtra. It was in the circumstances that the above order was passed by the Supreme Court holding that the Tribunal did not have the power of review whether independently under the Act or under Order XLVII of the C.P.C. Because that order was not available for review and in view of the fact that the S.L.P. against the order was dismissed on merit by the Supreme Court. The order passed by the Tribunal on 6.3.1995 thus merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting S.L.P. on 25.8.1995 and therefore there is no order which could be reviewed under Order XLVII of C.P.C. or any other empowering provision in the Tribunals Act.
Administration of Justice - Section 17 - Contempt of Courts Act, Sections 2 and 12 - Jurisdiction of Tribunal to punish its own contempt. - Since jurisdiction exercised by Tribunal under Section 17 is coordinate with jurisdiction of High Court under Article 213 of Constitution hence orders made under Contempt of Courts Act are open for judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution.
PALSHIKAR V.G., J.:---By this petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13-2-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in exercise of its power under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) initiating proceedings of the contempt of the Tribunal and directing framing of charges against the contemners mentioned in the order who are high placed officials of the Government of India.
2. The entire dispute which originally started in the year 1977 is between the three cadres which form the eligibility cadres for promotion to a higher cadre. To put it in oft used language the fixation of quota for promotion in the promotional cadres from the three feeder cadres is the subject matter of the dispute. It would be necessary therefore to note in detail the facts giving rise to the controversy which has now given rise to contempt of Court proceedings.
3. The petitioner No. 1 All India Customs Officers (Direct Recruit Appraisers) Association is the association of the direct recruit appraisers who are Customs Officers. The petitioner No. 2 is an individual customs appraiser. The respondent No. 1 is Union of India, the basic employer of all the three cadres. The respondent No. 2 is the Commissioner of Customs. Respondent No. 3 is Joint Secretary Administration, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, who is responsible of administration of the revenue department in the Ministry of Finance. Respondent No. 4 is Bombay Custom Preventive Service Association which is an association of Superintendents of Customs which are one of cadres for promotion to the higher cadre along with direct recruited customs appraisers. Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are working as Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) respondent No. 9 is Bombay Customs Appraising Officers Association (promotee appraisers) representing custom apprarisers who have become as such by promotion to that post.
4. Recruitment to Group A post in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service are filled in by two methods. (1) Direct recruitment through Union Public Service Commission and (2) by promotion. The post to be filled in by promotion are to be filled in from three feeder Group B cadres namely (1) Superintendent of Central Excise, (2) Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and (3) Customs Appraisers (either promoted or directly recruited).
5. The disputes started in 1978 by filing of a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the method of filling up Group A posts by promotion and a prayer was also made to evolve the proper method for promotion if necessary by making rules. These Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 4532 and 4533 of 1978 were disposed of by Supreme Court on 23-9-1987 directing that the promotions in dispute should be reviewed in accordance with the statutory Recruitment Rules framed in 1987 called Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules of 1987. According to the direction of the Supreme Court of India the promotions in dispute were to be reviewed in accordance with those statutory Rules.
6. The Superintendent of Central Excise being one feeder cadre, filed two writ petitions in the Supreme Court of India, being W.P. No. 306/88 and 1200 of 1988 as they were aggrieved by filling up Group A posts by promotion in accordance with Rule 18 of the Indian Customs Central Excise Service Group A Rules 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules of 1987).
7. On 22-11-1996 the Supreme Court disposed of W.P. No. 306 and 1200 of 1988 along with W.P. No. 1093 of 1990 and contempt petition filed by the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 4532 and 4533 of 1978. By this judgment the Honourable Supreme Court took a note of the proposal put forth by the Government of India dated 8-6-1989 by which Government of India suggested that the quota for promotion among the three feeder cadres i.e. Central Excise Superintendent, Customs Superintend
SupremeToday
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
