Court emphasizes fairness, delays promotion decision pending affidavit rectification.

The Court addressed the technical objection of the missing affidavit by respondent no.1 and highlighted the discriminatory treatment faced by the applicant and others despite a Supreme Court order. The Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in filing the affidavit and emphasized the need to prevent such discriminatory actions. Despite a request for adjournment to rectify the objection, the Court decided to maintain the status quo regarding promotions from Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax until the next hearing. The judgment focused on fairness and adherence to legal procedures.

---

---

Issues:
1. Technical objection of no affidavit filed by respondent no.1
2. Discriminatory treatment towards the applicant and similarly situated persons despite a Supreme Court order
3. Request for adjournment to overcome technical objection
4. Continuation of status quo regarding promotions from Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the technical objection raised due to the absence of an affidavit filed by respondent no.1. The respondent's counsel sought time to rectify this deficiency by submitting an affidavit from the concerned respondent. Despite the time granted, the Court expressed confusion over the delay in filing the affidavit by the Chairperson of C.B.D.T. - respondent no.1, as per the Supreme Court's order in favor of the applicant and similarly situated persons.

2. The Court highlighted the discriminatory treatment faced by the applicant and others in the State of Gujarat, despite a clear Supreme Court order in their favor. The failure to adhere to the Supreme Court's directive due to alleged disparities in High Court or Tribunal proceedings was deemed unacceptable. The Court expressed a prima facie view that the delay in filing the affidavit was unjustified and emphasized the need to prevent such discriminatory actions from persisting.

3. Following discussions on the affidavit filed by respondent no.1, the respondent's counsel requested another adjournment to address any technical objections. Despite the Court's inclination to grant an adjournment for completing the necessary pleadings, the respondent's counsel expressed an inability to continue with the statement. Consequently, the Court decided to maintain the status quo regarding promotions from Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax until the next hearing scheduled for 15.11.2016.

4. In conclusion, the judgment primarily addresses the technical objection of the missing affidavit, the issue of discriminatory treatment faced by the applicant and others, the request for adjournment to rectify the objection, and the decision to uphold the status quo concerning promotions within the Income Tax department. The Court's focus on ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures is evident throughout the detailed analysis of the issues raised in the case.

---