2012 (4) TMI 578 - Tri - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Denial of Appointment, Rules Reservation Not Mandatory for Member (Technical)

Shri K. Shyamsundar I.R.S. Working as Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V, Versus Union of India

Shri K. Shyamsundar I.R.S. Working as Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai V, Versus Union of India - TMI Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the rule of reservation for the appointment to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT.2. Legality and constitutional validity of the denial of appointment to the applicant, a Scheduled Caste candidate.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of the Rule of ReservationThe applicant, a 1985 Batch Officer of Indian Revenue Service, contended that the rule of reservation should apply to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT. He argued that the sanctioned cadre strength of Member (Technical) in CESTAT is 11, and based on the reservation percentages (16.66% for SC and 7.5% for ST), at least two posts should be earmarked for SC/ST candidates. The applicant pointed out that there was no notification exempting CESTAT from the purview of the rules of reservation and cited the practice in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) where reservations are followed.The respondents countered that the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT is an ex-cadre post and a selection post, thus not subject to reservation. They referred to U.O. No. 36016/1/88 Estt.(SCT) dated October 26, 1988, which excluded the posts of Judicial and Technical Members in CESTAT from reservation orders due to practical difficulties, though the claims of eligible SC/ST officers should be considered.Issue 2: Legality and Constitutional Validity of Denial of AppointmentThe applicant argued that the failure to provide reservation violated Articles 16 and 355 of the Constitution of India. He also cited Rule 21 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Members Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1987, which mandates reservations for SC/ST and other special categories.The Tribunal noted that the selection process was conducted by a Committee chaired by a Sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, ensuring merit and competence were the primary considerations. The Tribunal found no evidence of bias or malafides in the selection process. The Tribunal also observed that the applicant participated in the selection process with full knowledge that the rules of reservation were not applicable and did not challenge the notification inviting applications.The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs. K.L. Narasimhan, which emphasized that reservation provisions must be explicitly stated in the rules governing the appointments. Since there was no provision for reservation in the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1987, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's contention was untenable.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, holding that the rule of reservation was not mandatorily applicable for the appointment to the post of Member (Technical) in CESTAT and that the denial of appointment to the applicant was legally and constitutionally valid. The two questions raised were answered in the negative, and parties were ordered to bear their costs.