Back
High Court of Calcutta
S.P. Talukdar & Tarun Chatterjee, JJ.
Chairman, UPSC
Vs.
Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal & Ors.
W.P.C.T. No. 772 of 2002 with W.P.C.T. No. 803 of 2002 with W.P.C.T. No. 773 of 2002 with W.P.C.T. No. 800 of 2002
Decided on : 20th December, 2002
IRS RULES - Promotion to Post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - Selection on Merit - DOPT Guidelines - Applicability - Interpretation - Scope of Judicial Review.
Fact of the Case:
The issue arose due to the promotion process of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT). The Department of Revenue sent a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for filling up 101 vacancies in the post of CCIT. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted as per the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988 (IRS Rules). The DPC considered the candidature of the respondent, Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal, and other candidates for promotion to the post of CCIT. The DPC graded Khandelwal as "good" for both the panel years 2000-01 and 2001-02. Since he could not attain the benchmark "very good," his name was not included in the panel for promotion to the post of CCIT. Khandelwal filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the DPC's decision and seeking various reliefs, including a direction to the respondents to reconsider his case for promotion. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowed Khandelwal's application and directed the DPC to reconsider his case and recommend his promotion within three weeks.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DOPT guidelines dated 10th April, 1989 are applicable for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the unrevised scale of pay of Rs.7300-7600. The court also held that the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) guideline dated 8th December, 1999, and the DOPT guideline dated 30th March, 2000, are not applicable in the matter of selection to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The court further held that the expressions "selection on merit" and "selection by merit" are not synonymous and that the selection process as contained in the IRS Rules, 1988, does not violate the principle of natural justice. The court also held that the learned Tribunal was not justified in directing fresh consideration in the matter of selection to the post of CCIT/DGIT.
Issues: 1. Whether the DOPT guidelines dated 10th April, 1989 are applicable for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the unrevised scale of pay of Rs.7300-7600? 2. Whether the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) guideline dated 8th December, 1999, and the DOPT guideline dated 30th March, 2000, are applicable in the matter of selection to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax? 3. Whether the expressions "selection on merit" and "selection by merit" are synonymous? 4. Whether the selection process as contained in the IRS Rules, 1988, violates the principle of natural justice? 5. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in directing fresh consideration in the matter of selection to the post of CCIT/DGIT?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The DOPT guidelines dated 10th April, 1989 are applicable for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the unrevised scale of pay of Rs.7300-7600 because they supplement the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution and do not violate them. 2. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) guideline dated 8th December, 1999, and the DOPT guideline dated 30th March, 2000, are not applicable in the matter of selection to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax because they relate to promotion of officers in the pay scale of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (now Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) and not to promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. The expressions "selection on merit" and "selection by merit" are synonymous because they both mean that the selection should be based on merit. 4. The selection process as contained in the IRS Rules, 1988, does not violate the principle of natural justice because it provides for a fair and transparent process for the selection of officers for promotion. 5. The learned Tribunal was not justified in directing fresh consideration in the matter of selection to the post of CCIT/DGIT because the DPC had followed the proper procedure for selection and there was no evidence of any illegality or impropriety in the selection process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals filed by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the Union of India and set aside the judgment and order dated 8th May, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No. 290 of 2001 and O.A. No. 299 of 2001.
S.P. Talukdar, J.
The Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, as appellant/petitioner, filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being numbered W.P.C.T. 772 of 2002. It is directed against the order dated 8th May, 2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 290 of 2001.
2. The relevant facts of the petitioner's case are, in a nutshell, as follows:-
Respondent No.1, namely Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal, is Commissioner of Income Tax, now posted in Calcutta. The next promotional post of Commissioner of Income Tax is Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. All posts of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax are filled by promotion from amongst the Commissioners of Income Tax having at least three years regular service in the Senior Administrative Grade, Respondent No. 1 is working as Commissioner of Income Tax since 24th January, 1989 and is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax arose for the year 2000-2001. Similarly 46 vacancies arose in the said post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax during the year 2001-2002. The Department of Revenue, Government of India, sent a proposal to the Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi in the month of November, 2002 for filling up the said 101 vacancies in the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. In response to that, the said Departmental Promotion Committee, hereinafter referred to as DPC, was constituted as per the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988. Rule 7(4) of the Indian Revenue Services Rules of 1988 (in short, IRS Rules) provided that promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax should be made on the basis of "selection on merit" which shall be in the order of seniority subject to rejection of the unfit on the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee. Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/91-Estt.(D), dated 10th April, 1989 [amended by Office 'Memorandum No. 22011/5/91-Estt.(D), dated 27th March, 1997] laying down the functions, composition of the DPC and the procedure to be followed by such Committee in 'selecting candidates. Part-IV of the said Department of Personnel and Training guidelines inter alia lays down the procedure and guidelines to be followed for preparation of panel. Clause (b) under paragraph 6.2.1 of the said DOPT guidelines inter alia provides that the DOPT should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service record with particular reference to the confidential reports for the preceding five years. Clause (ii) of paragraph 6.3.1 of the said DOPT guidelines inter alia provides that in 'respect of posts which are the level of Rs.3,700/- to Rs.5,000/- (pre-revised) and above, the benchmark grade should be "very good" arid should be filled up by method of selection by merit. The candidature of respondent No. 1 along with other candidates was considered for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for both the years 2000-01 and 2001-02. On evaluation of annual confidential report of respondent No.1, the DPC graded him as "good" for both the panel years 2000-01 and 2001-02; Since the respondent No.1 could not attain the benchmark "very good" his name was not included in the panel for the years 2000-01 and 2001-02 for the promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The Union Public Service Commission forwarded the recommendations of the said Departmental Promotion Committee on 7th February, 2001 for promotion to the said post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Respondent No.1 having failed to attend the benchmark "very good" his name was not recommended for promotion to the said post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Being aggrieved by such action of the DPC in not recommending the name, respondent No.1 filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being O.A. No. 290 o
AI
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
