An unaffected individual cannot invoke the jurisdiction of an Administrative Tribunal to challenge a promotion; only a person aggrieved by an order has standing.

ORDER

Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying therein that the impugned letter dated 25.08.2015 and order dated 28.01.2011 which pertain to respondent No. 2, Dr. Sandeep Srivastava may be quashed and set aside and has sought directions to the respondent No. 1 to immediately remove Dr. Sandeep Srivastava from the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on account of not having requisite eligibility and experience as per Rule 22 of Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ (Amended) Rules, 1998.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working on the post of Superintendent in the office of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur. Through the present Original Application, he has challenged the order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure A/1) by which Dr. Sandeep Srivastava, respondent No. 2 in the present OA, was promoted to the post of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur on the ground that he did not possess requisite eligibility for promotion as provided under Rule 22 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ (Amended), Rules 1998.

3. Against, the above said order dated 28.01.2011 and 25.08.2015, the applicant approached the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur by way of Civil Writ Petition (Quo Warranto Writ) No. 14359/2015 wherein the following order dated 19.01.2016 was passed:

“Learned counsel prays for withdrawal of this writ petition with liberty to approach Central Administrative Tribunal.

In view of aforesaid, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty sought for.”

Accordingly, the applicant approached this Tribunal through the present Original Application.

4. Shri Kinshuk Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has taken a primary objection of maintainability of the present O.A. on the ground that the applicant has no locus as he is not affected by the impugned order(s). He states that the applicant is totally unconnected with the promotion order that he is challenging and the promotion of a person which does not affect the applicant in any way. Other ground on which the respondents insist the non-maintainability of the present Original Application is that the applicant has challenged impugned order dated 28.01.2011 through this O.A. filed in the year 2016, which is after a lapse of long period of five years. Hence, the present O.A. is claimed to be time barred.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

6. The question which at the preliminary stage needs to be answered is as to whether the present Original Application is maintainable as the applicant’s locus is questionable being totally unaffected by the impugned order dated 28.01.2011 promoting one Dr. Sandeep Srivastava, respondent no. 2 in the present O.A. The applicant is working on the post of Superintendent in the office of Central Excise and Service Tax, Jaipur. He has challenged the Office Order dated 28.01.2011 (Annexure A/1) vide which respondent No. 2, Dr. Sandeep Srivastava, had been promoted to the cadre of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on adhoc basis for a period of one year. It is pertinent to mention that by this impugned order dated 28.01.2011 as many as 27 officers of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) were promoted to the grade of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise on adhoc basis for a period of one year. The present applicant was neither eligible nor had he ever applied or claimed or participated in any process for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise. In other words, the applicant was neither eligible nor aspirant for the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise to which respondent No. 2 along with other 26 officers was promoted.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant insists that this Tribunal has the competence to adjudicate all matters relating to the recruitment and service condition as this Tribunal is subs