2013 (7) TMI 503 - HC - Central Excise

Cut-off date Recruitment for the post of Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) On November 16, 2012 a further circular was issued by the respondent for one post of Member, CBEC which is to fall vacant on December 31, 2012 - Held that - As per the case of Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2000 (5) TMI 1041 - SUPREME COURT , that the cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications and that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. Also, as per M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka 2003 (9) TMI 76 - SUPREME Court , candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection. The prescription of April 01 of the panel year i.e. 2012, as the date on which a Chief Commissioner should meet the eligibility criteria of one year service has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not have one year service on the date by which the applications were received i.e. November 30, 2011 and also on April 01, 2012 which is a date beyond November 30, 2011. Hence the preparation of panel by the Committee of Secretaries without considering the name of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The Committee of Secretaries has prepared the panel of three officers who have been appointed as Members of CBEC on varying dates, the last one being on September 03, 2012 (respondent No.5) which is a date before September 09, 2012 the earliest date when petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of one year service. On this ground also, the panel having been exhausted by appointing respondent No.5 on September 03, 2012, the appointment of respondent No.5 cannot be said to be illegal - All officers who applied pursuant to the circular dated November 16, 2012 would be considered for being appointed as a Member CBEC.

Issues Involved:

1. Eligibility criteria for appointment as Member of CBEC.
2. Validity of the panel prepared by the Committee of Secretaries.
3. Applicability of guidelines versus Recruitment Rules.
4. Consideration of the petitioner's candidature.
5. Tribunal's decision on the petitioner's eligibility.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria for Appointment as Member of CBEC:

The eligibility criteria for the appointment to the post of Member, CBEC, are governed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Chairman and Members) Recruitment Rules, 2006, and its subsequent amendments in 2008 and 2012. The key requirements include:
- Officers must have at least 15 years of experience in administering and running the indirect tax administration with at least 10 years of field experience.
- High professional merit and excellence.
- Impeccable reputation of integrity.
- One year of regular service in the grade of HAG pay scale of Rs.67000-79000 per month.
- The candidate must not have less than one year's residual service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy.

2. Validity of the Panel Prepared by the Committee of Secretaries:

The panel for the post of Member, CBEC, was prepared by the Committee of Secretaries in July 2012. The panel included three officers (respondents 3 to 5) and was prepared based on the guidelines issued on June 08, 2006, and the amendment dated July 13, 2006, which required candidates to have one year of service as Chief Commissioner as of April 01 of the panel year.

3. Applicability of Guidelines Versus Recruitment Rules:

The petitioner argued that the guidelines dated June 08, 2006, and July 13, 2006, should not apply as they were not incorporated into the Recruitment Rules. The Recruitment Rules, as amended, did not specify April 01 as the cut-off date for eligibility. The court noted that the Recruitment Rules did not prescribe April 01, 2012, as the date for fulfilling the eligibility of one year service, nor did the circular dated October 21, 2011.

4. Consideration of the Petitioner's Candidature:

The petitioner, having been appointed as Chief Commissioner on September 09, 2011, did not meet the one-year service requirement as of April 01, 2012, and therefore, his name was not considered in the initial panel prepared by the Committee of Secretaries. The court held that the Committee of Secretaries could not have considered the petitioner's candidature as he did not have one year of service as of April 01, 2012, or by the last date for receipt of applications, November 30, 2011.

5. Tribunal's Decision on the Petitioner's Eligibility:

The Tribunal held that the petitioner, having rendered more than one year of regular service by December 31, 2012, should have been considered for appointment as Member, CBEC. However, the court found that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria as of the relevant dates and thus could not be considered by the Committee of Secretaries in their initial meeting. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed that all officers who applied pursuant to the circular dated November 16, 2012, including the petitioner, be considered for the remaining vacancy.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the preparation of the panel by the Committee of Secretaries without considering the petitioner was justified as he did not meet the eligibility criteria as of the relevant dates. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the process of considering applications for the remaining vacancy was directed to be completed within three months.

← Previous Next →