The court established that the applicants were eligible for ad hoc promotion as Inspector of Income Tax and directed the respondents to grant promotion to the applicants according to law. The court also emphasized that there was no scope of judicial review to intervene in the policy notifications and recruitment rules.

ORDER :

Nandita Chatterjee, Member (A)

1. Two O.A.s. bearing Nos. 259 of 2013 and No. 615 of 2018 have been taken up together for adjudication as the applicants in the former, ministerial staff and applicants in the latter, namely Stenograpers, are both aspirants for promotion to Inspectors of Income Tax and have variously challenged certain policy notifications of the Respondent authorities.

2. Heard both learned Counsel, examined pleadings and documents on record. Written notes of arguments have been filed.

3. O.A. bearing No. 615 of 2018 has been filed by ad hoc Stenographers (Gr. I) praying for the following relief:-

(a) Leave be granted to move one single application jointly under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as the applicants have got a common grievances against the same impugned proposal for draft of Recruitment Rules and all of them are similarly circumstanced person.

(b) To quash and/or set aside the impugned paragraph No. (vi) of the Order No. 19 being File No. PCCITA/VB&S/Pers./49/DPC/4E/01/2017-18 dated 25.4.2018 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Headquarters (Personnel & Establishment), Kolkata whereby they have taken a decision that despite all applicants found fit in the DPC for promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspectors and despite they have cleared the departmental examination at this moment, the promotion order cannot be issued in terms of order dated 4.6.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Suniti Kr. Gayen & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., in O.A. No. 259 of 2013 and MA. No. 350/00164 of 2014, where there is no nexus between the case of present applicants and the case of Suniti Kr. Gayen's and there is no such interim order has been granted by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Suniti Kr. Gayen's, the respondent authority cannot issue any promotion order in respect of that applicants of Suniti Kr. Gayen to the post of Income Tax Inspector, therefore, withholding the promotion order in respect of the present applicants by wrong reading of the order dated 4.6.2014 in the case of Suniti Kr. Gayen's is otherwise bad in law and illegal and under any circumstances, the present applicants who are found fit. in the DPC and who also qualified the departmental examinations for promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspector from Stenographers' Cadre, the promotion order on the basis of such DPC as well as on the basis of qualified in the departmental. examination cannot be withheld under any circumstances by the respondents and the respondent authority be directed to issue promotion order immediately in favour of the applicants to the post of Income Tax Inspectors against the vacancy year of 2017-18 with effect from the date when DPC is recommended the same along with all consequential benefits;

(c) To pass an appropriate order directing the respondent authority to issue promotion order in favour of the present applicants to the post of Income Tax Inspector who are belonged to Stenographers' Cadre and have been declared successful in the Departmental Examination for the post of Income Tax Inspector and in terms of the Recruitment Rules existing in the field dated 8th September, 1986, an order of promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspectors be issued with effect from the date when they are became eligible for the same along with all consequential benefits;

(d) To quash and/or set the proposal of draft Recruitment Rules for the post of Executive Assistant dated 5.8.2016 issued by the Income Tax Officer of Directorate of Income Tax, Human Resource Development, Central Board of Direct Taxes being Annexure A-14 of this original application without filling up the vacancy to the post of Income Tax Inspectors from the Stenographers' Cadre by violation of the statutory Recruitment Rules existing in the field dated 8th September, 1986.

4. M.A. No. 320 of 2018 is a prayer for joint prosecution under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (P