IMPORTANT POINT
The allocation of government positions based on domicile rather than merit violates constitutional principles of equality and fairness.

JUDGMENT :

(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

Heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Choudhury and Ms. R. Medhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 24.06.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter to be referred as “Tribunal”) in O.A. No.339/2015. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Application preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 and has directed the petitioners herein (respondents before the Tribunal), more particularly, the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) to take earnest initiative for streamlining the Rule and Regulation in case of Inspector as well as the Superintendent in order to maintain equality and rationality with reasonableness and to defuse the genuine heartburning/ deprivation amongst the employees in the matter of promotion. The Tribunal has further directed that the petitioners shall review the entire issue on the basis of the principle that the “seniority of merit” shall not be disturbed while making the next promotion to the employees and to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Superintendent by convening a DPC and if he is found fit, he shall be promoted to such post at least from the date of his junior Shri Gyanesh Kumar was promoted. The Tribunal has further observed that the entire exercise shall be carried out within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. However, it was made clear that the order shall not be treated as precedent for the others.

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) of the Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions has issued an advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Central Excise, Income Tax, etc., 1996. The respondent No.1 applied for the said post for which written examination was held on 28.04.1996 on zonal basis. In the meantime, it appears that the action of the Staff Selection Commission for recruiting the candidates through the scheme of zone-wise selection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, however, the same was dismissed.

4. Thereafter the matter went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 09.12.1996 passed in C.A. No.4190/1995 (Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors. -Vs- Union of Indian & Ors.), while striking down the scheme of zone-wise selections, observed that the zonal-wise selection cannot be permitted as various candidates who appeared in some of the zones and secured more marks than those who are selected from other zones, would be deprived of their selection resulting into great injustice and consequent discrimination. It was also held that there can be said to exist no nexus between the aforesaid process of zone-wise selection and the object to be achieved, i.e. the selection of the best candidates. It was further held that the process of selection, i.e. zone-wise selection, is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.

5. Pursuant to the above direction, re-examination was held for recruitment of Inspector General, Excise, Income Tax, etc. 1996 on 13.06.1999. The result of the said re-examination was declared on 03.04.2000 and thereafter the personality test was conducted and result of which was declared on 05.01.2002. The respondent No.1 was selected in the said selection and was provided posting at Shillong Commissionerate vide order dated 26.04.2004 and he joined as Inspector in Shillong Zone on 07.06.2024.

6. However, in the year 2014, the respondent No.1 has approached the Tribunal with a grievance that vide order dated 30.09.2014 issued by the Additional Commissioner (CCO), Office of