TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. N.R.Parmar (supra). Baring vague assertions about delay based on above case in the application for vacating interim relief, no other ground appears. The Department has tried to take shelter under duties to be performed for collection of taxes, a sovereign function, to which we are not unmindful. However, at various stages and forums, grievance of the eligible officers like the petitioner remains unanswered and statements were made before this Court to complete the exercise as early as possible. Even the last affidavit which was filed on 27.01.2017 before this Court in contempt proceedings also, reveals expected time to be taken of not more than 2 months for preparing draft of All India inter-se seniority list of Income Tax Officers by interpolating all the seniority list of ITOs and then to be published on the website of the Department. Such ad hocism on the part of the Income Tax Department in the appointment of important post of ACIT de hors the directions issued in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra) and cannot be permitted even on the ground of administrative exigencies unless final seniority list of ITOs based on all India seniority is completed within time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ministrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench raising grievance against initiation of the process for promotion to the post of ACIT on the basis of seniority list dated 01.09.2015 being contrary to the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra). However, in view of pendency of Civil Application (for direction) No.6862 of 2016 in MCA No.1150 of 2016 in SCA No.7465 of 2014 before the High Court, the Tribunal thought it fit not to deal with the prayer of the applicant in the OA subject to the order that may be passed by the High Court in the above pending matters, reserving liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal as and when circumstances warrant. The above order passed by the Tribunal on 28.02.2017 in OA No.31 of 2017 is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition, in which emphasis is led on non-compliance of the declared law on determination of seniority qua direct recruits viz-a-viz promotees based on rotation of quota principles and specific questions answered by the Apex Court in the above decision (Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra)) about what should be the process date on which direct recruits can be considered for seniority viz-a-viz prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers, otherwise not only administration but public interest would also suffer. 3. Learned Counsel for the Department has reemphasized certain paras in the affidavit in reply dated 31.03.2017 filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and submitted that whenever an incumbent is found eligible and directions were given by the Tribunal, ad hoc promotion is issued to the cadre of ACIT for the vacancy year 2015-16 and all possible efforts are made to comply with directions issued in the case of Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra) by the Apex Court, but it is not possible now to state before this Court about specific time limit within which such seniority list of ITOs will be prepared. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for newly joined respondent No.5 one of the affected officers also contended that though he is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of ACIT, by virtue of operation of interim relief granted by this Court on 03.03.2017, the Department is unable to undertake further exercise and therefore, the case of respondent No.5 deserves to be considered accordingly. The arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the Department are adopted for the purpose of prayer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority, would stop after the available direct recruits and promotees are assigned their slots for the concerned recruitment year. 28.2 To the extent direct recruits were not available for the concerned recruitment year, the promotees would be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list, below the last position upto which it was possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas. And vice versa. 28.3 The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies for a recruitment year, would be carried forward to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years, where necessary). And vice versa. In this behalf, it is necessary to understand two distinct phrases used in the OM dated 3.7.1986. Firstly, the phrase in that year which connotes the recruitment year for which specific vacancies are earmarked. And secondly, the phrase in the subsequent year , which connotes carried forward vacancies, filled in addition to, vacancies earmarked for a subsequent recruitment year. 28.4 The additional direct recruits selected, against the carried forward va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tters being collectively disposed of. In all these cases the advertised vacancies were filled up in the original/first examination/selection conducted for the same. None of the direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors herein can be stated to be occupying carried forward vacancies, or vacancies which came to be filled up by a later examination/selection process. The facts only reveal, that the examination and the selection process of direct recruits could not be completed within the recruitment year itself. For this, the modification/amendment in the manner of determining the inter-se seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, carried out through the OM dated 7.2.1986, and the compilation of the instructions pertaining to seniority in the OM dated 3.7.1986, leave no room for any doubt, that the rotation of quotas principle, would be fully applicable to the direct recruits in the present controversy. The direct recruits herein will therefore have to be interspaced with promotees of the same recruitment year. Thus, the issue involved in these writ petitions is no more res integra and already concluded by the Apex Court in the above decision. 6. In the context of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
