Tribunal orders adhoc promotion for applicant, bypassing seniority, with potential for reversion.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant for adhoc promotion to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for the vacancy year 2015-16, irrespective of seniority list ranking. The adhoc promotion would not guarantee a permanent right, allowing for potential reversion if not selected in regular promotion DPC based on seniority. The decision aimed to address the applicant's grievance while recognizing challenges in finalizing the seniority list and balancing administrative needs.

---

---

Issues:
Proposed action on holding DPC for promotion from ITO to ACIT for vacancy year 2014-15, Compliance with Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in N.R.Parmar case, Preparation of consolidated seniority list of ITOs, Legality of initiating DPC without finalizing seniority list, Vigilance clearance status for Income Tax Officers, Consideration of applicant for promotion, Public interest in holding DPC for ACIT vacancies, Dispute over All India Seniority List preparation, Genuine difficulties in finalizing seniority list, Adhoc promotion for ACIT vacancies, Applicant's entitlement for promotion consideration.

Analysis:
The applicant raised concerns regarding the proposed action by the respondents to hold a DPC for the promotion from the cadre of Income Tax Officer (ITO) to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) for the vacancy year 2014-15. The applicant argued that the DPC was considering officers based on a seniority list predating the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the N.R.Parmar case, which necessitated a review of the seniority list for ITOs since 1986. The CBDT had formed a committee to prepare the consolidated seniority list. The applicant contended that without finalizing the seniority list, initiating the DPC process was illegal and violated the Supreme Court's direction. The applicant sought to quash the process and declaration of illegality for not preparing the seniority list as per the Court's directions.

The respondents defended their actions by stating that the All India Seniority List for ITOs could not be finalized due to pending litigations across different Tribunal benches. They highlighted the vacancies in the ACIT cadre affecting revenue collection and the necessity to hold a DPC for adhoc promotions to address administrative requirements. The respondents argued that the applicant's promotion consideration would occur when the DPC convened for regular promotions, dismissing the applicant's claims of illegality in the process.

Upon review, the Tribunal acknowledged the genuine difficulties in finalizing the seniority list but emphasized the need to honor the Supreme Court's judgment and revise the All India Seniority List for ITOs. The Tribunal noted the vacancies in the ACIT cadre and the public interest in filling them promptly. In a balanced decision, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant for adhoc promotion to ACIT for the vacancy year 2015-16, irrespective of the seniority list ranking, to address the applicant's grievance. The adhoc promotion would not confer a permanent right, and the applicant could be reverted if not selected in the regular promotion DPC based on seniority.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the OA, addressing the applicant's concerns by directing adhoc promotion consideration while recognizing the challenges faced by the respondents in finalizing the seniority list. The decision aimed to balance the interests of the applicant and the administrative requirements, ensuring fairness in the promotion process.

---