2017 (5) TMI 1395 - HC - Indian Laws

Claim for directing the authorities to relax and promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) rejected - Held that - Neither the petitioner can claim relaxation of Rules as a matter of right nor he has made out a case of discrimination. The petitioner could be heard complaining denial of relaxation only if such a discretionary benefit was extended to similarly placed employee(s). The competent authority has not granted relaxation to any individual. It is only as a matter of policy that the employees belonging to specified Tribes and communities have been granted height relaxation to which the petitioner admittedly does not belong. Similarly, the petitioner cannot claim parity with differently-abled persons who constitute a separate and distinct class under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to rejection of promotion claim by Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise).
3. Claim for relaxation of rules based on disability and community status.
4. Dismissal of the Original Application by the Tribunal.
5. Analysis of the petitioner's arguments and the judgment delivered.

Issue 1:
The appellant challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting his claim for promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise). The Tribunal had declared him unfit for promotion due to not meeting the height requirement of 157.5 cms as mandated by the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002.

Issue 2:
The petitioner, who joined as a Lower Division Clerk and was later promoted to Senior Tax Assistant, aimed for promotion to the post of Inspector (Central Excise). The eligibility criteria for this promotion included specific physical requirements, such as the height condition, which the petitioner did not meet during the physical test held on 17.06.2014.

Issue 3:
The petitioner sought relaxation of the height requirement based on two grounds. Firstly, he argued for parity with differently-abled candidates who received relaxation and reservation in promotions. Secondly, he claimed discrimination citing relaxation granted to employees from specific Tribes and communities. However, the Tribunal dismissed these arguments.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner, emphasizing that relaxation of rules is not a right and must be based on valid grounds. The judgment highlighted that no individual had been granted relaxation, and any relaxation given was a policy decision for specific groups, to which the petitioner did not belong. The judgment also clarified the distinction between differently-abled persons and other categories seeking relaxation.

Issue 5:
The High Court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and examining the records, upheld the Tribunal's decision. It concluded that the petitioner could not claim relaxation of rules as a matter of right and failed to establish any discrimination. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner could only challenge the denial of relaxation if similarly placed employees had received such benefits, which was not the case. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented, the decision of the Tribunal, and the final judgment of the High Court.