Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10459
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri M.G. Sewlikar, J
Valerie Avinash Dhepe And Ors – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Department – Respondent
OA | OA 75/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri S.J. Kamble
For the Respondents: N/A
The court upheld that reservations in promotions for SC/ST are constitutionally valid under Article 16(4-A), emphasizing the need for a proper review process to ensure compliance with legal mandates.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) - Reservation in promotion - Challenge to the Office Order regarding review DPCs since 1997 exists. Supreme Court established that Article 16(4-A) permits reservation in promotion with consequential seniority for SC/ST if inadequacy is shown. The review process must adhere to the stipulated legal principles, yet the process followed was found compliant with constitutional mandates. Thus, the service of promoted candidates cannot be invalidated merely due to caste verification lapses. (Paras 7, 35, 36, 59)
(B) Reservation policy - The constitutional validity of reservation in promotion allows candidates from reserved categories to apply for non-reserved positions. Efficiency of administration is maintained when promotions align with merit, ensuring fair representation. The decision further emphasized the legislative intent to provide protection to SC/ST individuals in public service without compromising the overall framework of equality and justice. (Paras 129, 60)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the pre-delivery order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the review process. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. details of the working committee's responsibilities. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. discussion about reservation and its implications. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. constitutional framework surrounding reservations. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. amendments impacting reservations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. criteria for determining adequacy of representation in promotions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
1. In this OA, I have gone through the pre-delivery order of Hon’ble Shri Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J).
2. Paras 1 to 22 of the above-mentioned pre-delivery order contain factual position filed by the parties in this OA. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the official respondents, Shri S.J. Kamble. He contended that what the respondents are contemplating to do is review DPC since 1997 till date in Group B and Group C cadres and not promotion. They are simply collecting data. Therefore, the petition is premature as rights of any of the applicants are not going to be infringed.
4. We have considered submissions of all the learned counsels and have given thoughtful consideration to their submissions.
5. Challenge thrown in this OA is to the Office Order dated 12th June, 2023 i.e. the impugned order which is reproduced as under:
“OFFICE ORDER
Date: 12/06/2023
Working Committee for verification and preparing details for conducting Review DPCs since 1997 till date in the Group 'B' and Group 'C' cadres is constituted hereunder:
2. The Chairman and Members are name based and would perform their functions wherever they are being posted. Shri Bimal Mahto, ITI and Shri Sagar Patil, Sr. TA are attached to the O/o Pr. CCIT, Nagpur as, OSD till 10th July, 2023.
3. The work scope of the working committee and SOP with regard to conducting Review DPCs is as under-
a. The Committee is entrusted with the work of examining the directions given in CBDT's letter dated 27.05.2019 regarding prospective implementation of NR Parmar Judgement and also examining instructions issued vide DoP1 OM No. 20011/2/2019-Estt. (D) dated 13.08.2021 in Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019 of K Meghachandra Singh &Ors Vs Ningam Siro &Ors and effective implementation of the said directions/instructions in the Nagpur region by reviewing DPCs since R.Y 1997 to the DPCs till date
b. The Committee is instructed to strictly follow the directions issued vide DOPT OM NO 36012/2/96 Estt (Res) dated 02.07.1997 on the backdrop of RK Sabaharwal judgement of the Apex Court and also instructions issued in the DOPT OM N. 36012/16/2019-Estt. (Res) dated 12.04.2022 on the backdrop of Jarnail Singh judgement of the Apex Court.
c. The Committee is instructed to strictly follow the directions Issued in DOPT OM No. 36033/16/80-Estt. (SCT) dated 27.02.1981 and DOPT OM No 36011/3/2005- Estt. (Res.) dated 09.09.2005 regarding verification of caste status at every important upturn of employee's career d. The Committee is instructed that reserved category officers/officials V who have not submitted caste validity as mandated by the MAHARASHTRA ACT No. XXIII OF 2001 will not be considered for promotion from their current designation keeping in view the ratio decidendi in the matter of 'The Chief Regional Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Vs Pradip' of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal No. 742/2020 as under-
"Protecting the services of a candidate who is found not to belong to the community or tribe for whom the reservation is intended substantially encroaches upon legal rights of genuine members of the reserved communities whose just entitlements are negated by the grant of a seat to an ineligible person.”
e. The Committee with the assistance of administration would examine the cases of reserved category candidates who have passed Departmental Examination (ITO/ITI/Ministerial etc.) on general standards for impl
