TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t eligible to be considered for selection." The prescription of April 01 of the panel year i.e. 2012, as the date on which a Chief Commissioner should meet the eligibility criteria of one year service has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner did not have one year service on the date by which the applications were received i.e. November 30, 2011 and also on April 01, 2012 which is a date beyond November 30, 2011. Hence the preparation of panel by the Committee of Secretaries without considering the name of the petitioner cannot be faulted. The Committee of Secretaries has prepared the panel of three officers who have been appointed as Members of CBEC on varying dates, the last one being on September 03, 2012 (respondent No.5) which is a date before September 09, 2012 the earliest date when petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of one year service. On this ground also, the panel having been exhausted by appointing respondent No.5 on September 03, 2012, the appointment of respondent No.5 cannot be said to be illegal - All officers who applied pursuant to the circular dated November 16, 2012 would be considered for being appointed as a Member CBEC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment to the post of Member CBEC is governed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (Chairman and Members) Recruitment Rules, 2006, which were promulgated by way of notification dated February 02, 2006. The following was the position under the Recruitment Rules of 2006. (a) The post of Member is a selection post meaning, thereby, that it is to be filled on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. (b) The method of recruitment, to the post, is stipulated as deputation/ absorption . (c) Officers of the Central Government appointed on regular basis in the grade of Rs. 22,400-24,500, with (i) 15 years experience in administering and running the indirect tax administration in the Central Government, with 10 years field experience, (ii) high professional merit and excellence, and (iii) impeccable reputation of integrity, were eligible. (iv) The candidate was required to be of a maximum age 56 years, on the date of closing of applications. (v) No person, with less than 1 year s residual service, on the date of occurrence of the vacancy for which the selection was being made, was eligible for consideration. 5. On June 08, 2006, vide a confidential note, guidelines for select ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing high professional merit and excellence; and (iii) Having impeccable reputation of integrity. Note: 1. The normal eligibility conditions of maximum age of 56 years on the date of closing of applications shall not be applicable in cases of absorption. 2. No person with less than 1 year residual service on the date of occurrence of vacancy for which selection is being made shall be eligible for consideration. Amendment of 2012 Officers of the Central Government having one year regular service in the grade of HAG pay scale of Rs.67000-79000 per month. AND possessing the following essential qualification:- (i) Having at least 15 years of experience in administering and running the indirect tax administration in the Central Government with at least 10 years of experience in the field formations of Central Board of Excise and Customs. (ii) Having high professional merit and excellence; and (iii) Having impeccable reputation of integrity. Note: 1. The normal eligibility conditions of maximum age of 56 years on the date of closing of applications shall not be applicable in cases of absorption. 2. No person with less than 1 year residual service on the date of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the eligibility condition as on November 26, 2012. The petitioner submitted application for this vacancy also vide his letter dated November 22, 2012. 12. On December 26, 2012 the petitioner filed the Original Application No.4405/2012 before the Tribunal wherein he inter-alia challenged the appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 5 in terms of circular dated October 21, 2011 and seeks a prayer for quashing the circular dated November 16, 2012 and further for recasting of the panel of the financial year 2012-13. It is the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that he was holding the post of Chief Commissioner with effect from September 09, 2011 and he has one year of service on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and as such he is entitled to be considered. 13. The respondent contended that the petitioner does not have one year of service as on April 01, 2012, as such he was not considered. 14. The Tribunal held as the petitioner has already rendered more than one year of regular service as on December 31, 2012, the selection Committee ought to have considered him for appointment as Member, CBEC in his initial meeting itself. 15. Mr. C. Harishankar, learned counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether the Committee of Secretaries could have overlooked the candidature of the petitioner in the initial meeting in the month of July 2012 on the ground that he did not have one year service as on April 01, 2012? 18. In this regard suffice would it be to state that the Recruitment Rules are very clear. It is the admitted case of both the sides that the Recruitment Rules does not prescribe April 01 of the panel year i.e. 2012 as the date for fulfilling the eligibility of one year service. 19. Interestingly neither the Recruitment Rules prescribe nor does the circular dated October 21, 2012 stipulates, April 01, 2012 as the date on which the eligibility of one year of regular service shall be required to be fulfilled. The position of law in so far as the cut off date for determining the eligibility for the purpose of appointment is clear in terms of the judgments of the Supreme Court in (2003) 7 SCC 517, M.A.Murthy v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 54, Ashok Kumar Sarkar v. Union of India, (2011) 9 SCC 438 Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission. In the judgment of Alka Ojha s case (supra) the Supreme Court has held as under:- 15. The question whether the candid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in terms of the guidelines April 01, 2012 as the date on which Chief Commissioner should have one year of service. On both the dates the petitioner herein did not have one year service as Chief Commissioner. The Committee of Secretaries could not have considered his candidature. 21. The submission of Mr.C.Hari Shankar that the requirement is to be seen on the date of occurrence of vacancy that is December 31, 2012 does not hold good in view of the position of law. The reliance placed by Mr.C.Harishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.Dayal s case (supra) is misplaced. In the said case the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue, which rule shall be applicable for making appointments against vacancies arising after amendment. The Supreme Court held that those vacancies which have arisen after amendment shall be governed by the amended eligibility conditions. The issue in hand is totally different and has no applicability in the facts of this case. 22. Further the prescription of April 01 of the panel year i.e. 2012, as the date on which a Chief Commissioner should meet the eligibility criteria of one year service has not caused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
