2001 (5) TMI 968 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Rule 13 of the Rules allowing appointment of IAS and RAS members on deputation, and Sub-Clause (c) of Rule 4 regarding the minimum number of District Excise Officers posts.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Rule 13 of the Rules:
The petitioner, an association of the Excise Department staff, contested Rule 13 of the Rules permitting the State Government to appoint IAS and RAS members on deputation. They argued that this provision was unconstitutional and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner also raised concerns about the appointment of RAS Officers as District Excise Officers exceeding the specified limit and requested the court to declare such appointments as invalid. They emphasized the technical expertise required for the role of District Excise Officers and advocated for promotions from within the department rather than deputation from Administrative Services.

2. Minimum Number of District Excise Officers Posts:
The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the appointment of District Excise Officers, particularly concerning the number of RAS Officers appointed against the available posts. They pointed out that the Rules specified only three posts for RAS Officers, yet more than three had been appointed, affecting the promotion opportunities for departmental officers. The petitioner argued that the cadre posts of District Excise Officers should be filled through promotions from within the department, considering the specialized experience needed for the role.

3. Government's Response and Legal Analysis:
In response, the Government clarified that the Rules allowed for a minimum of four encadred posts of District Excise Officers, with the remaining posts being excadred. They defended the appointments made, stating that promotions from within the department had been prioritized, with only a limited number of posts offered to RAS Officers on deputation. The Government asserted its authority to determine post vacancies, cadre strength, and appointment procedures, maintaining that the Rules were constitutionally sound and not arbitrary. The court concurred, upholding the Government's discretion in creating, modifying, or abolishing posts as per the Rules.

4. Court's Decision and Recommendations:
After considering the arguments and facts presented, the court dismissed the writ petition challenging Rule 13 and the minimum number of District Excise Officers posts. However, the court expressed concern over the Government's delay in determining the cadre strength, emphasizing the need for timely action to clarify the number of encadred posts. The court urged the Government to fulfill its obligation to determine the strength of the service within six months to comply with Rule 4(2) effectively.

5. Conclusion:
The court rejected the petitioner's contentions, affirming the constitutionality of Rule 13 and Rule 4 regarding the appointment and cadre strength of District Excise Officers. While dismissing the writ petition, the court underscored the importance of the Government promptly determining the cadre strength to ensure transparency and adherence to the Rules.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues, arguments, responses, legal interpretations, and the court's decision regarding the Rule 13 challenge and the minimum number of District Excise Officers posts in the judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court.