2016 (6) TMI 1230 - Tri - Indian Laws

Holding DPC for the purpose of promotion from the cadre of Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) for the vacancy year 2014-15 - Held that - No material whatsoever has been placed by the respondents before the Tribunal to show that even if the DPC were to consider the officers in the cadre of ITOs as per the All India Seniority List to be published in terms of N.R.Parmar (2012 (12) TMI 872 - SUPREME COURT), the applicant is not entitled to be considered for promotion. They should have pointed out the total available vacancies for the vacancy year 2015-16 and the approximate position of the applicant in the proposed seniority list. No such exercise was undertaken. It is not the case of the respondents that there are several other officials, who are senior to him in the cadre of ITOs before the he gets his turn to be considered. Thus, in the fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to come to the conclusion that the anticipation of the applicant that he may fall within the limit of the officers who are entitled to be considered by the DPC is well governed. Therefore we are of the opinion that interest of justice will be served, if the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for adhoc promotion to the cadre of ACIT for the vacancy year 2015-16 in the meeting of the DPC scheduled to be held on 20.6.2016 at 10 30 AM in the Chamber of Chairman, CBDT, irrespective of the ranking in the seniority list in the pre-N.R.Parmar or post-N.R.Parmar. It is made clear that the adhoc promotion to be granted to the cadre of ACIT if recommended by the DPC having found him fit in all other respects, the same will not confer any right.

Summary

Issues:
Proposed action on holding DPC for promotion from ITO to ACIT for vacancy year 2014-15, Compliance with Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in N.R.Parmar case, Preparation of consolidated seniority list of ITOs, Legality of initiating DPC without finalizing seniority list, Vigilance clearance status for Income Tax Officers, Consideration of applicant for promotion, Public interest in holding DPC for ACIT vacancies, Dispute over All India Seniority List preparation, Genuine difficulties in finalizing seniority list, Adhoc promotion for ACIT vacancies, Applicant's entitlement for promotion consideration.

Analysis:
The applicant raised concerns regarding the proposed action by the respondents to hold a DPC for the promotion from the cadre of Income Tax Officer (ITO) to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) for the vacancy year 2014-15. The applicant argued that the DPC was considering officers based on a seniority list predating the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the N.R.Parmar case, which necessitated a review of the seniority list for ITOs since 1986. The CBDT had formed a committee to prepare the consolidated seniority list. The applicant contended that without finalizing the seniority list, initiating the DPC process was illegal and violated the Supreme Court's direction. The applicant sought to quash the process and declaration of illegality for not preparing the seniority list as per the Court's directions.

The respondents defended their actions by stating that the All India Seniority List for ITOs could not be finalized due to pending litigations across different Tribunal benches. They highlighted the vacancies in the ACIT cadre affecting revenue collection and the necessity to hold a DPC for adhoc promotions to address administrative requirements. The respondents argued that the applicant's promotion consideration would occur when the DPC convened for regular promotions, dismissing the applicant's claims of illegality in the process.

Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged the genuine difficulties in finalizing the seniority list but emphasized the need to honor the Supreme Court's judgment and revise the All India Seniority List for ITOs. The Tribunal noted the vacancies in the ACIT cadre and the public interest in filling them promptly. In a balanced decision, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant for adhoc promotion to ACIT for the vacancy year 2015-16, irrespective of the seniority list ranking, to address the applicant's grievance. The adhoc promotion would not confer a permanent right, and the applicant could be reverted if not selected in the regular promotion DPC based on seniority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the OA, addressing the applicant's concerns by directing adhoc promotion consideration while recognizing the challenges faced by the respondents in finalizing the seniority list. The decision aimed to balance the interests of the applicant and the administrative requirements, ensuring fairness in the promotion process.