TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (7) TMI 892
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period of two weeks by applying the relevant rules and thereafter, also allowed two weeks more time to the affected parties to represent against the said seniority list. A further period of two weeks was allowed to the petitioners to dispose of the representations, if any, and to finalize the seniority list. It was further directed that the finalized seniority list be published and thereafter, the DPC be held in association with the Union Public Service Commission. In the meantime the petitioners were directed not to act upon the promotions already effected by the DPC and to consider the claim of the Promotees to promotion as per the settled final seniority list and it was also directed that if during the interregnum any of the officials have retired and were later on found to be fit for empanelment then the petitioners were to accord them promotions with all the consequences. With these directions the Tribunal had disposed of the original application bearing O.A. No 1052/2010. The petitioners in the said writ petition WP (C) 8018/2010 have prayed for quashing of order dated 2.11.2010 in O.A no. 1052 of 2010 and connected Miscellaneous applications and also sought that the said pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent nos. 1 to 3 to give promotion to the petitioner to next higher grade of JCIT. In the said petition an application being C.M. No. 1006 of 2011 for intervention has been filed by Sh.M.M.S Attri contending that by the time DPC took place, the applicant had superannuated in August, 2010 though he is a promotee Deputy Commissioner promoted on 01.01.2005. He has also sought reiteration of directions of Tribunal in paras 36 and 37 of order dated 2.11.2010. 4. To comprehend the dispute the relevant facts as enumerated in WP (C) 8018 of 2010 titled as Union of India & ors Vs Shri Vikas Keraba Suryawanshi & Ors are that the respondents are the Direct Recruited Officers of 2002 and 2003 batches of the Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax). The Direct Recruits of 2002 were appointed on or about 20th August, 2002 on the basis of the results of the Civil Services Examination 2001 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission, while the Direct Recruit Officers of 2003 batch were appointed in August, 2003. 5. In the year 2001, the petitioners had created a large number of Group "A" posts due to a comprehensive Cadre restructuring of the Income Tax Department. While creating thes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; ORDER Subject: Creation of additional posts in the Income Tax Department pursuance of Cadre restructuring-filling up of the posts of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by promotion of ITO- One time relaxation in the Indian Revenue Service Rules, 1988. WHEREAS a large number of Group "A" posts viz. CCIT, CIT, Addl.CIT, JCIT, DCIT and ACIT have been created vide sanction order No.A-11013/3/98-Ad. VII dated 24th October, 2000 consequent upon a comprehensive Cadre restructuring of the Income Tax Department. While creating these posts in Indian Revenue Service it has been decided by the competent authority that all the posts sanctioned in the various grades shall be filled up through promotions from the feeder grade. AND WHEREAS in the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, a total of 293 additional posts have been created. Similarly in the higher grade 675 additional posts have been created and another 25 posts shall stand sanctioned during 2001-2002. Once these 700 (675+25) posts are filled up in the higher grades, a total number of 993 posts are available in the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 484 vacancies will pertain to the year 2000-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... According to the respondents no official seniority lists have been published by the IRS Department till date and that the Department has only published a Civil List from time to time which carries the names of the officers akin to a seniority list. The grievance of the respondents is that the latest available Civil List of the year of 2006, clearly reveals that Rule 9(iii) of the IRS Rules, 1988 has not been complied with, since the Promotees and the Direct Recruits of the 2000 batch have been matched and arranged on 1:1 basis and after the Direct Recruits of the 2000 batch have been exhausted, the remaining promotes have been clubbed together before the first promotee of the 2001 batch i.e. the subsequent batch. The same trend is observed with respect to the Promotees and Direct Recruits of the batch of 2001 as well, since the Direct Recruits of 2001 batch have been exhausted, the excess Promotees of 2001 batch have been bunched above the first promotee officer of the 2002 batch. According to the respondents even though there was relaxation of Quota Rule under Rule 7(2) of the IRS Rules, 1988 by order dated 31st August, 2001 however, there was no relaxation of the Rota Rule unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndian Revenue Service, 1988. [ii] Direct the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to implement the ratio of 1:1 between Direct Recruits and Promotees from the date of appointment and grant all other consequential benefits. [iii] Restrain the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 from giving further promotion to the Promotees, appointed beyond their quota, to the grade of JCIT in the proposed DPC for the year 2010- 11, without first finalizing the seniority position as per the ratio of 1:1 for Direct Recruits and Promotees. [iv] Direct the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to prepare and publish a seniority list following the ratio of 1:1 as mandated by the RR Rules, 1988. [v] Direct the Respondent No.5 to bring before this Hon‟ble Court the entire records pertaining to the sanction as mandated by para 15 of the RR Rules 1988. [vi] Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to-grant; and [vii] Grant the costs of this Original Application." 13. The petitioners had refuted the pleas and contentions of the respondents by contending inter-alia that similar issues, as raised by the respondents in the original application, had been raised in O.A No.417/2005 titled as "Sh.Sanjay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as barred by limitation. It was also held that it is also a moot point whether it was correct to hold in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad that by the order of relaxation, "quota" rules could be relaxed but not the "rota" rule. The Tribunal, therefore, decided to refer the matter to the Larger Bench. The relevant order dated 16th September, 2010 of the Tribunal referring the matter to the Larger Bench is as under:- 6. In the instant OA as well as in the OA number 417 of 2005 before the Ahmedabad Bench the challenge is not to the order dated 31.08.2001. The plea is to follow the rule regarding 1:1 seniority between the Promotee and Direct Recruit officers and to issue a seniority list as per the Recruitment Rules, i.e., in the ratio of 1:1 as provided in Rule 9 (iii) ibid. In the light of this it is a moot point whether the OA number 417 of 2005 could be dismissed as barred by limitation. It is also a moot point whether it was correct to hold in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad (supra) that by the order of relaxation „quota‟ rules could be relaxed but not the „rota‟ rule. 7. The issue has very wide ramifications and seniority of very large number of officers is invo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to us, would not adversely affect the respondents. Since no order affecting the parties adversely, at this stage, has to be passed, we proceed to pass orders on this Misc. Application. Having heard arguments, we order that the DPC may go on but the result thereof be put into sealed cover to be shown to the Tribunal. Let the Full Bench be constituted for 22.09.2010. Arguments shall be heard in the Full Bench and no adjournment shall be granted in the matter. Process DASTI. 20. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal was therefore required to decide on the correctness of the law laid down by the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in Sanjay Punglia (supra) as well as the law laid down in Prabhakant (supra) as the issue had wide ramifications on the issue of seniority for a large number of Indian Revenue Officers involved. 21. After the matter was referred by the Tribunal to the Larger Bench by order dated 16th September, 2010, an affidavit dated 18th October, 2010 was filed on behalf of petitioners contending that the petitioners have been operating the Civil List as the seniority list for the purpose of consideration of the promotion of IRS (I.T. Officers) from one grade to another....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to exigencies of service, specific relaxations have been taken in terms of the statutory RRs. Accordingly the present application is barred by limitation since the issue pertains to the period 2001 and also promissory estoppel. vi) That presently there are more than 500 vacancies in the grade of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax and the officers who are under consideration for promotion are to the tune of around 330. Hence any promotions made to the level of JCIT is not going to effect the applicants since they are not even in the eligibility zone having not put in the requisite years of service for consideration for promotion to JCIT." 22. The petitioners also filed another affidavit dated 20th October, 2010 stating the vacancy positions in the grade of JCIT (Joint Commissioner of Income Tax) as on that day and the number of officers likely to be promoted consequent to the DPC held on 20th to 23rd September, 2010. The petitioners also disclosed that the last officer considered by the DPC held on 23rd September, 2010 is a Promotee Officer of 2001 batch who is placed at SI Number 743 of IRS Civil List 2006 whereas the direct recruit officer of 2002 batch is placed at serial N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal application, rather than answering the reference, directed to it, regarding the correctness of the orders passed by the two Tribunals in the cases of Sanjay Punglia (supra) and Prabhakant (supra). Thus the Larger Bench considered the issue of whether or not the Civil List is to be treated as a seniority list and if not then what would be the methodology apt in law to publish a seniority list as per the statutory rules. 25. The Larger Bench observed that with regard to the contention of limitation in relation to the decision of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Sanjay Punglia (supra) holding that the non-challenge to the order dated 31st August, 2001 is barred by delay and laches, it would not hold good in the present facts and circumstances as what has been challenged in the present original application is the non-settling of the seniority. The Larger Bench held that after the categorical finding as to no seniority list being issued by the petitioners, which they were bound to make as per Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad (supra), it gives a recurring and continuing cause of action to the respondents to assail any act of the petitioners whereby the seniority list has not been issued as per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....romotion, laid down a methodology in a Constitution Bench, which overrides any other decision of the lower coram under Article 141 of the Constitution, whereby a preliminary draft seniority list is prepared as per the statutory rules and on publication representations are invited by the affected persons and on consideration of the representations, a final seniority list is to be published. The aforesaid view was also taken by the three-Judge Bench in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad (supra), where the denial of opportunity to the officers to make representation against the gradation list has been held to be invalid in law. 35. The aforesaid ratio decidendi mutatis mutandis applies to the seniority list on an analogy and the pre- requisite for preparation of final seniority list to be followed by the official respondents. The published civil list, by no stretch of imagination and even by applying the test of a common reasonable prudent man, shall not be treated as a seniority list. Perhaps the official respondents, when it has not been pointed out on judicial intervention to them that the civil list is not a seniority list, have perpetuated this illegality in the past. However, we being....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s correct to hold in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad (supra) that by the order of relaxation „quota‟ rules could be relaxed but not the „rota‟ rule. 7. The issue has very wide ramifications and seniority of very large number of officers is involved. In view of this and in the light of the judgment in Prabhakant Ayodhya Prasad (supra), cited above, which may not have laid down the correct law, it would be necessary to place this matter before a Larger Bench for consideration. The Registry will place this before one of us (Honourable Chairman) for constitution of a Larger Bench." 31. The Tribunal even after taking note of the specific point of reference, instead of answering the same, had altogether proceeded on an entirely separate issue, outside the very scope of reference, and directed the petitioners to draft a seniority list within a period of two weeks. As per the learned ASG, Sh. Parag Tripathi Sr. Advocate the answer to the reference was of grave importance, since on its very basis the seniority of around 3500 members of the IRS was to be determined. 32. The reference was made regarding the issue of the correctness of the law laid down in the two ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rudent man, since as per the learned ASG the said list is prepared in strict compliance of the provisions, as prescribed in the IRS Rules 1988 i.e. Rule 5, 9(i), 9(ii), 9(iii) and 10 and DOPT OM No. 22011/7/1986-Estt. (D) dated 03-07-1986. It is also pointed out that the IRS Civil List has definite parts for different grades like ACIT/DCIT, Joint /ADL. CIT, CIT and CCIT, and is published on an annual basis. It contains all the service details of an employee like the Date of Birth, Date of Promotion and Date of Joining in IRS, which are relevant for determining his/her seniority position. The IRS Civil List also has additional information i.e. Qualification and Details of present posting, which is mentioned therein as a matter of convenience for both publishing and reference. According to the learned ASG, the serial number mentioned in the list clearly denotes the Seniority Position of the officers in their respective grade. It is also contended that this fact is even further substantiated by para „2‟ of the said list which clearly prescribes that "all the IRS Officers are given the opportunity to represent against any discrepancy" found in the said list. 35. The lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve the Civil List at this juncture would negate every promotion made since the very inception of the IRS on the basis of the seniority denoted on the Civil List and this in turn would only cause chaos in the administrative side of the IRS department. 39. The learned ASG, has also urged that the promotions for the officers of the year 2001 & 2002, which had been finalized by the DPC and approved by the UPSC in terms of the IRS Rules, 1988 had been made pursuant to the Relaxation Order dated 31.8.2001 which resulted in the diversion of the posts at the entry level of the IRS from the quota of the Direct Recruits to that of Promotees. It was also pointed out that this relaxation order was passed under Rule l5 of the IRS Rules 1988 and no challenge, direct or indirect to this Relaxation Order has been made either in the order of reference, or before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal or even in the OA No. 417/2005, Sanjay Punglia (supra). Therefore, since there is no challenge to the order of relaxation, the learned ASG contended, that the same cannot be invalidated by the backdoor technique of alleging that the rota rules should be followed, which in any case has been followed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-08-2001 with due approval of the DOPT and UPSC. Thus it is urged that since the order of relaxation has not been challenged by the respondents, the purpose behind the same cannot be thwarted by demanding that the rota be maintained between the Promotees and direct recruits across all batches or that the promotees of 2000 & 2001 be matched with the Direct Recruits of 2002 & 2003 who are junior to the promotees on account of their subsequent appointment. 42. The Learned ASG also relied on the judgment of Direct Recruit Class II Engineer Officers‟ Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 1607, wherein the Supreme Court clearly held that where the Quota Rule has broken down and the appointments are made from one source in excess of the quota, but are made after following the procedure prescribed by the rules for the appointment, the appointees should not be pushed down below the appointees from the other source inducted in the service at a later date. 43. The petitioners also contended that the Tribunal had completely lost sight of the fact that none of the respondents who approached the Tribunal were personally affected in any manner by the results o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e construed to be a seniority list under any circumstances. It is urged that the petitioners cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the specific stipulation in the Civil List, stating that the Civil List is for the purpose of information and guidance only and does not purport to be an authentic document for seniority. The stipulation as enumerated in the preface of the compilation of the Civil List of the Indian Revenue Services is as under:- "The Civil List is for the purpose of information and guidance only and does not purport to be an authentic document for seniority and other particulars of the members of the Service which can be determined from the original records at the time of entry into Service and promotion to various grades, Service Books and other relevant documents." 47. Learned Senior Counsel also asserted that despite interim observations and directions by the Tribunal to keep the seniority list ready for the perusal of the Tribunal, neither was any seniority list produced, nor was it disclosed nor was it pleaded before the Tribunal that the Civil List is the seniority list for all intents and purposes. In this regard specific reliance has been placed on the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of 2010 where in para 23, it is categorically stated that it is not disputed that the formal seniority list was not drawn up for the IRS. The stipulation made in the said written submission is as under:- "It is not in dispute that the formal seniority list was not drawn up for IRS. However, it is under IRS Civil List published annual basis, which has always been operated as seniority list, right since inceptions of IRS itself. The seniority of officers of IRS Civil List fully confirmed with IRS Rule 1988 and DOP&T OM dated 3rd July, 1986." 51. On behalf of the respondents, certain inaccuracies have also been pointed out to establish that the Civil List could not be the seniority list in the facts and circumstances. In the Civil List incorporating the promotions, transfers and postings till 10th January, 2007 referring to Page 241, it is contended that at serial no.109 is a promotee officer whereas at serial no.110 and 111 there are Direct Recruits. At serial no.112 is again a promotee officer which does not reflect the quota and rota rule of one promotee officer and one direct recruit. Similarly, other inflections at page no.253 at serial nos.223, 224, 225; at page no.323, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the respondent clarified that in the present matter the respondents are not claiming the vacancies of Direct Recruits of earlier years which were filled by Promotees. The respondents are only asking for determination of seniority list based on the roster as mandated by Rule 9(iii) of the IRS Recruitment Rules. It is also contended that ante-jumping of later direct recruit is not permissible in law, but pushing down of excess promotees appointed in excess of their quota is a well settled law. Therefore, it is urged that the rotational system of seniority which provides for pushing down excess promotees is not in conflict with the assertion that Direct Recruits of later batches cannot claim retrospective seniority. In support of this contention the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of Mervyn Coutindo & Ors vs Collector Of Customs, Bombay & Ors, (1966) 3 SCR 600, and Suraj Parkash Gupta & Others vs. State of J & K Others, (2000) 7 SCC 561. 55. The learned senior counsel also contended that since the Promotees had been appointed in excess of their prescribed ceiling of 50% quota for promotion, thus, it is urged that the Promotees of 2001 and 2002 had been promoted on an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme Court in the case of S.G Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1427; BS Gupta v. Union of India (BS Gupta 2nd case); 1975 (3) SCC 38, Kamal Kanti Dutta & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors; 1980 (4) SCC 38 and Hundraj Kanyalal Sajnani v. Union of Indian & Ors. 1990 (Suppl) SCC 577. 58. The learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that the OM of DOPT dated 3.7.1986 is not applicable for the Indian Revenue Service, since the same has been superseded by the IRS Rules, 1988. It has been pointed out that OM dated 3.7.1986 is a consolidated order on seniority which refers to another DOP&T OM No. 35014/2/80-Estt.(D) dated 7.2.1986. Para 6 of the OM Dated 7.2.1986 clearly states that "The General Principles of seniority issued on 22nd December, 1959, referred to above, may be deemed to have been modified to that extent." Therefore, it is contended that the OM dated 7.2.1986 has only the modifying effect on its original OM dated 22.12.1959 and thus it would only be applicable in the cases in which the OM dated 22.12.1959 is applicable. In turn OM dated 22.12.1959 clarifies on the issue of its applicability in para 1 wherein the following has been stated: "These....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tructuring exercise, was done in the year 2001, wherein various grades were given enhanced sanctioned strength commencing from the grade of CCIT, CIT etc. At the stage of the entry-level grade of IRS, 993 additional posts were made out of which, as per Rule 7(2) of IRS Rules 1988, 50% of 993 i.e.497 was the share of the Promotees while the remaining 50% was the share of the Direct Recruits. However by relaxation order dated 31-8-2001, the share of Direct Recruits, was diverted to the quota of the Promotees, in order to alleviate the stagnation in the feeder cadre. 63. It appears that the said relaxation order was not challenged by any of the Direct Recruits either in OA No. 417/2005, Sanjay Punglia (supra) or the impugned order of reference. Since the same has not been challenged and over 11 years have elapsed since the said relaxation had been effected, the validity of the same could not be questioned, prima facie and it appears that the said relaxation order has attained finality in law. In any case in view of the reference made to the Tribunal, this question and other pleas and contentions ought to have been determined by the Tribunal before directing the petitioners to draw ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with `quota‟, the principle of `Rota‟ was also exempted or not, drawing of seniority list would be a futile exercise. If the petitioners draw the seniority lists without following the `rota‟, the direct recruits would challenge it. If the petitioners draw the seniority list following the `rota‟, the promotees would challenge it. Therefore, even if the Tribunal was of the view that civil list cannot be construed as `seniority list‟, it should have answered the reference before giving directions for preparation of seniority list. 68. The question referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal by order dated 16th September, 2010 has been reproduced above. Perusal of the same makes it abundantly clear that the reference made to the larger bench was to determine the correctness of the law laid down in the case of Sanjay Punglia (supra) and the case of Prabhakant Ayodhaya Prasad (supra) which are contrary to each other. Therefore, in the circumstances it is imperative to determine whether or not when the quota rule is relaxed, the relaxation of the rota rule will also follow or not. The Tribunal primarily adjudicated on the issue of whether the Civil L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as under : 93. Before moving on to other aspects, we may summarise our conclusions on the jurisdictional powers of these Tribunals. The Tribunals are competent to hear matters where the vires of statutory provisions are questioned. However, in discharging this duty, they cannot act as substitutes for the High Courts and the Supreme Court which have, under our constitutional set-up, been specifically entrusted with such an obligation. Their function in this respect is only supplementary and all such decisions of the Tribunals will be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the respective High Courts. The Tribunals will consequently also have the power to test the vires of subordinate legislations and rules. However, this power of the Tribunals will be subject to one important exception. The Tribunals shall not entertain any question regarding the vires of their parent statutes following the settled principle that a Tribunal which is a creature of an Act cannot declare that very Act to be unconstitutional. In such cases alone, the High Court concerned may be approached directly. All other decisions of these Tribunals, rendered in cases that they are specifically empowered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following grounds: (i) That there was lack of a proper stand taken by the petitioners before the Tribunal that the Civil List is the Seniority List. (ii)That the disclaimer contained in para 3 of the Civil List is clearly reflective of the fact that the Civil List is not the Seniority List. (iii)That the opportunity of redressal provided by the Civil List is unsatisfactory, since any correction would be effected only after a new Civil List would be published, after the lapse of one year. 74. Regarding the plea of the petitioners, it was observed that the stand taken in the Counter Affidavit as well as the additional affidavit was "rather an evasive reply". However a perusal of the said affidavit clearly shows that it was far from evasive. In fact a very specific and categorical stand was taken regarding the Civil List being the seniority list in the affidavit dated 18th October, 2010. The plea of the petitioners is as follows; "iv) That in this connection the official respondents would like to submit that the department has been till now operating the Civil List as the seniority list for the purpose of consideration of the promotion of the IRS QD Officers from on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents and relied upon by the Tribunal must be read as a whole which then would not lead to the inference that the Civil List is not the Seniority List. 77. The Tribunal also concluded that in its view the Civil List only amounted to a "Directory of the Officers" and that in case of any discrepancy or mistake, "the redressal is not immediate". The Tribunal further observed that any redressal would be corrected only after a fresh list is published, which is after a lapse of one year. However as has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of affidavit dated 7.12.2010 (along with Annexures A-1 to A-7) it is clearly evident that the moment a change is required in the Civil List, which operates as a seniority list, an Office Order is issued and the placement of that officer is made with a S.No. with the alphabet 'A', to indicate the precise placement of the said officer. The petitioners also provided an illustration by stating that, if say an officer is at S. No. 4 in the CIT grade, and pursuant to a redressal of the grievance by a CAT Order, the said employee is assigned the rectified position of S. No. 84-A in the CCIT grade and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity list is to be circulated. In any case, if the Tribunals‟ directions are allowed then in effect it would lead to unsettling the position for over 29 years which in turn would result in the massive disruption of the administrative side of the Department. 80. On behalf of the petitioners it was also clarified that presently there are no records available for the period prior to the year 1981. However the seniority position of the officers in the cadre as on 01.01.1981 was examined and duly considered while preparing the IRS Civil List of 1981, as a composite Seniority List of all grades in the IRS. The learned ASG also pointed out that there are no records available with the Department with respect to any separate and distinct seniority list being used prior to 1981. Therefore, the respondent‟s contention that there was Seniority List in the I.T. Department before is of no consequence, especially when a Civil List which in itself is a seniority list, as it has all the ingredients of seniority list, has been in operation since 1981. It is also noteworthy that the respondents have not produced any other seniority list in support of their assertions that the Civil Lis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcept in the instant case. Thus, the learned ASG has urged that the IRS Civil List has stood not only the test of time but it is the seniority list, as it has all the ingredients of a seniority list and in the circumstances the nomenclature and disclaimer, which has also been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners, will not change its character, format and its purpose. 83. The learned counsel for direct recruits are unable to explain that if the Civil List is not the Seniority list how the seniority had been determined since the inception of the IRS up until now. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that uptil now there was no dispute regarding the Civil List being the Seniority List since 1981. It is for the first time only now that the same is being questioned. 84. The respondents, direct recruits, have not been able to rebut the plea of the petitioners that even their own promotions had been effected by their position in the Civil List. The respondents have merely contended that the plea that even their promotions have been effected as per their position on the Civil List is a grave misrepresentation of facts. How it is grave misrepresentation of facts has not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the orders passed by the Tribunal in the past have been incorporated in the Civil List. The allegation that the Civil List is only a Directory of the officers as contended by the respondents, is also negated by the fact that the Direct Recruits and the Promotees have been matched in the ratio of 1:1, except when the excess Promotees of a particular batch had been bunched up before the subsequent batch of Direct Recruits and promotees. 88. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner dated 25th January, 2011 before this Court, the petitioners have highlighted the essentials or characteristics of a seniority list which cannot be refuted by the respondents, direct recruits. The relevant portion of the rejoinder is as follows: "c) CHARACTERISTICS OF A SENIORITY LIST That as a matter of fact, the tests for finding out as to whether a list of officers is a Seniority list or not, existence or otherwise, of following characteristics will have to be ascertained:- i) Whether the list shows Name, Serial Number, Post occupied and other relevant details of members of the service. ii) Whether the list has been prepared taking into account Rota-Quota Rules, as stipulated in the Recruitmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its, have failed to point out any ingredient of seniority list which is not present in the Civil List. If the parameters of seniority list are, say three, and the Civil List has more parameters which are required to determine the seniority, it will not lose the character of seniority list. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons the findings of the Tribunal that the Civil List is not the Seniority list cannot be accepted and is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The Civil List is the Seniority List and has been used as seniority list since 1981 and can continue to be used as seniority list in future also. The petitioners are, however, required to correct it as and when any errors are established in it. 92. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal that the Civil List is not the seniority list is erroneous and it is set aside. The Civil List is directed to be taken as seniority list as has been taken since 1981. The discrepancies or errors, if any, in the civil list are liable to be corrected at the instance of appropriate officers in accordance with the rules and regulations and the law laid down by the Courts. 93. Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal to prepare a fres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioners are as under: A. Total number of vacancies in the grade of JCIT Reported to the DPC for the vacancy year 2010-11 : 503 B. Total number of eligible DCIT (including those officers In whose case minimum eligible service has been Relaxed by one year as on 01.01.2010 Available for consideration : 385 C. Number of officers out of (B) above, who have Retired or expired, upto 30.09.2010 : 046 D. Maximum number of officers available for Promotion if found fit by the DPC (B-C) : 339 Thus the number of vacancies in the grade of JCIT which would still remain unfilled would be above 164. Thus the number of vacancies in the grade of JCIT as on date are far in excess to the number of officers now available for promotion and therefore, even after promotion of eligible officers considered by DPC held on 23rd September, 2010, vacancy in the grade of JCIT will still be available. In the circumstances the respondents, direct recruits, promotional rights and prospects will be adversely affected since they had not completed the eligibility requirement for promotion nor are they were within the range for being considered for promotion to the level of JCIT by the DPC which concluded on 23rd Sept....