The judgment emphasizes the authority of the executive to make policy decisions and the limitations of judicial review in interfering with such decisions. It also highlights the interpretation of Recruitment Rules, 2002 and RR 2016 in relation to the circular, emphasizing the absence of a provision for bringing in persons from outside the cadre in RR 2016.

ORDER :

1. Draft amendment is allowed. Necessary amendment shall be carried out today itself.

2. Notice returnable forthwith. Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice for and on behalf of respondents.

3. The challenge in this petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 362 of 2022 on the ground of challenge of Circular dated 20.09.2018 and the same having been upheld by the Apex Court in case of S.K. Nausad Rahaman and Others vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 2022 SC 1494. The original application is disposed of with the observations that the representation if made by the applicants regarding the grievance is within one month before the competent authority, the same shall be decided as per the law in light of the judgment of the Apex Court within two months from the receipt of the representation.

4. Prayers of the present petition are as follows:

“(A) That the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent-authorities.

(B) Be pleased to allow the present petition.

(i) quash and set aside the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 362 of 2022, impugned in this petition.

(ii) further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner in his present Commissionerate till new policy decision is taken by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment dated 10.03.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 1243 of 2022, and further be pleased to examine and consider the case of each petitioner in light of directions given in judgment dated 10.03.2022 keeping in mind the terms and conditions of his Inter-Commissionerate Transfer as well as fact that more than five to six years, he has been serving in present commissionerate.

(iii) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 362 of 2022, and/or direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo.

(iv) grant any other relief or pass any other order, which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. We have heard the learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondents. It was made clear at the outset, we are deciding the matter finally considering the limited scope after the decision of the Apex Court.

6. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

After due process of selection conducted by the Staff Selection Commission on the post of Inspector, present petitioner got selected. This was in pursuance of the Central Excise and Customs Department Inspector (Group-C posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. On his selection, the Cadre Controlling Authorities (for short “CCA”) of Chennai Zone issued order of appointment after completion of certain process and the petitioner was appointed as Inspector of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

7. The new Recruitment Rules came to be introduced in the year-2016 governing the service conditions of the cadre of Inspector (Central Excise). It is his case that he was since recruited pursuant to Recruitment Rules, 2002, his appointment is governed by the Rules of 2002. The applications for ICT were submitted by the petitioner much before publication of new Recruitment Rules and he applied twice or thrice and finally, the Vadodara Zone was considered in the year-2017. Circular dated 20.09.2018 is in challenge whereby it has been decided only in exceptional circumstances depending on merit of each case, ICT may be allowed on loan basis alone and that too for three years which is extendable for another two years depending on the administrative requirements.

7.1 I