1999 (2) TMI 142 - SC - Central Excise

Whether pending consideration of names by the UPSC for promotion to Group A, ad hoc promotions have been made to Group A and members from the first feeder category, namely, Superintendents of Excise Group B were not promoted.? Held that - The complaint is that for the said ad hoc promotions, the quota rule of 6 1 2 has not been followed. The answer of the Union of India in this behalf is that it has been found that earlier there have been excess promotions to Group A from the petitioners category of Excise Superintendents Group B and, therefore, presently, more officers from the other two feeder channels have been promoted on an ad hoc basis so that there will be no imbalance when the final review takes place. Even assuming that for purposes of ad hoc promotions it would have been fair to follow the ratio of 6 2 1, the respondents have shown adequate justification for not following the said ratio while making ad hoc promotions. Thus if one of these groups in the quota has had more promotions earlier and if the Government of India wants to off-set the said advantage, such an action cannot be said to be unfair. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the quota rule for promotions from Group B to Group A in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Services.
2. Validity of ad hoc promotions made without adhering to the prescribed quota.
3. Implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment dated 22-11-1996.
4. Request for a time limit for the preparation of an inter se seniority list.
5. Request for alteration of the quota ratio based on current cadre strength.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the Quota Rule for Promotions from Group B to Group A:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the quota rule of 6:1:2 for promotions to Group A from three feeder categories: Superintendents of Central Excise, Superintendents of Customs (P), and Customs Appraisers. The petitioners argued that the ratio should be maintained at all times in Group A posts, not just at the time of filling vacancies. They contended that due to frequent retirements, the proportion of Superintendents of Central Excise in Group A posts is not maintained. The Court, however, found no merit in this contention. It clarified that the intention behind the proposals dated 8-6-1989 and the amended rules of 1998 was to apply the ratio to vacancies as they arise, not to maintain a constant ratio in Group A posts. The Court emphasized that once officers are promoted to Group A, their feeder category identity ceases to exist.

2. Validity of Ad Hoc Promotions Made Without Adhering to the Prescribed Quota:
The petitioners raised concerns about ad hoc promotions to Group A made without following the 6:1:2 quota. The Union of India justified this by stating that earlier there were excess promotions from the petitioners' category, and the current ad hoc promotions aimed to balance this. The Court accepted this justification, stating that it was not unfair for the government to offset earlier excess promotions by promoting officers from other feeder categories on an ad hoc basis.

3. Implementation of the Supreme Court's Judgment Dated 22-11-1996:
The Court noted that the Union of India had amended Rule 18 and issued seniority lists following the 1996 judgment. However, delays in the review process by the UPSC necessitated further ad hoc promotions. The Court directed the Union of India to expedite the implementation of the 1996 judgment and complete the review process within six months.

4. Request for a Time Limit for the Preparation of an Inter Se Seniority List:
The Customs Appraisers (Direct recruits) requested a time limit for implementing the 1996 judgment and preparing an inter se seniority list. The Court agreed and directed the Union of India to take steps for implementation within six months.

5. Request for Alteration of the Quota Ratio Based on Current Cadre Strength:
The Customs Superintendents (P) argued that the 6:1:2 ratio was based on the 1989 cadre strength and should be revised according to the current strength. The Court held that any change in the quota must be made through appropriate amendments to the rules, not through an interlocutory application. The Court dismissed the application but allowed the applicants to take necessary steps for seeking a change in the quota.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 651 of 1997 and related applications, upholding the interpretation of the quota rule as applicable to vacancies as they arise. It directed the Union of India to expedite the implementation of the 1996 judgment and complete the review process within six months. The Court also clarified that any change in the quota ratio must be made through proper amendments to the rules.

← Previous Next →