CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 30^th day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

S. Lakshmana Perumal, S/o T.Subbarayan, No.1500, AF Flats, VOC Nagar, Tondiarpet, Chennai. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. V. Vijay Shankar Vs

1. The Union of India rep by its Chief Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

2. The Commissioner of Customs Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.

3. Mr. Ajaya Kumar, Skipper Mate, Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. A.P. Srinivas for R. 1 & 2

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

nd “ to call for the records of the 2 respondent in his order No.146/2015, dated 02.06.2015 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to promote the applicant as skipper mate and pass such further or other orders as may be deemed fit and proper”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows: The applicant was appointed as a Lascar in the department in 1986. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Sukhani in 2003 and further elevated to the position of Tindal in 2009. The applicant’s next promotional post is that of Skipper Mate. According to the relevant Recruitment Rules, this post is to be filled strictly by promotion, and only in the absence of eligible candidates, by direct recruitment. In 2010, as there were no eligible candidates available at that time, steps were initiated to fill the Skipper Mate post on an all-India basis. As part of this process, one vacancy was allotted to the Chennai Commissionerate. In 2013, Mr. Franklin was selected and appointed as Skipper Mate. However, after serving for just one year, one Franklin resigned from the post in 2013 for reasons best known to him. In 2014, the applicant became fully eligible for promotion to the post of Skipper Mate and accordingly submitted a representation requesting consideration for the vacant position. While the applicant was awaiting a decision on his promotion, one Ajayakumar was appointed as Skipper Mate on 13.06.2015. Aggrieved by this appointment, the applicant has filed the present Original Application challenging the selection of the said Ajayakumar.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, as per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Skipper Mate, the post must be filled by promotion, and only in the absence of eligible candidates, through direct recruitment. Therefore, the action of the respondents in appointing the 3rd respondent is highly illegal and contrary to the Recruitment Rules.

4. He further submitted that the respondents had notified the vacancy for the post of Skipper Mate in 2010 for direct recruitment, as no eligible candidates were available at that time. Consequently, one Franklin was appointed as Skipper Mate after clearing the examination conducted by the Board on an all-India basis. However, the said Franklin later resigned from the post on personal grounds. The counsel argued that had the 3rd respondent been accommodated in 2013 itself, there might have been some justification, as there were still no qualified candidates at that time.

However, it is unclear how the 3rd respondent was allowed such an extended period, ultimately joining only in 2015. This raises concerns that the respondents have made appointments based on personal preferences, rather than following established procedures.

5. He further contended that the respondents erred in granting the appointment to the 3rd respondent in place of Franklin, who was a direct recruit. In doing so, the respondents failed to consider that a waitlist cannot be indefinitely extended to accommodate a candidate of their choice. In the present case, the applicant was fully eligible and qualified for promotion,