ALLAHABAD CAT JUDGEMENT - MYTH & REALITY...

A panic situation has been created by constant messaging of abolition of 58 posts from Central Excise quota. When more than 1500 posts are lying vacant since long, the Board, on one or the other pretext, is not able to hold the DPC and filling the posts. Frustration is already at its peak and this message of siphoning of 58 posts have aggravated the feelings even more.

The judgement of the Allahabad CAT – 93/2015 dated 04-Mar-2016 is as under :-

A direct appraiser Shri S J Singh of 1982 batch who subsequently was promoted as Asstt. Commissioner in 1994, in 1998 as DC, in 2005 as JC and since 2007 is serving as ADC, on being aggrieved by the publication of revised select list dated 04-Feb-2013 which has been published for regular promotions to Grade VI of Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ for the period 1980 to 1996-97 (at page 60 of OA) based on the said revised select list dated 04-Feb-2013 on various grounds.

Subsequently, a Misc. Application was filed by the Direct Recruit Appraisers’ Association for impleadment / intervention in the Original Application, which was allowed.

Their prayer was 'Appraiser-specific'. They asked corrections in the regularisations of promotions (of Appraiser stream) made to JTS during period 1979 to 1996-97 (which was originally done in Nov-2000 in 6:1:2 ratio as per SC order of Nov-1996 in WP No.306/88). They also sought changes in select list (which was revised in Feb-2013, for period 1979 to 1996-97; only i.r.o. Appraiser turned Grp-A).

They prayed for [1] treating the direct recruit JTS posts (which were restricted to 25 nos. by a decision taken in 1995 by CBEC under Secretary(Rev) instructions) in excess of 25 diverted for recruitment by Promotion, to be treated as regular instead of treating as 'adhoc'. [2] deleting names of retired Appraising officers retired/VRS from the select list of respective years. They got the order accordingly.

In the judgement, Paras 20, 24 & 29 are the crucial paras. Para 20 & 24 deal with the dispute among the promotee and the direct recruit appraisers in their slots, in their placements in their final seniority list, in the respective panel years. Para 29 deals with the distribution of promotee vacancies and Direct recruit vacancies diverted for appointment of promotes amongst three streams as per SC judgement dated 21-Nov-1996. There they have calculated that there is a loss of AC’s vacancy to appraisers equal to 550 less 492 = 58 posts. Loss of AC’s vacancy to Supdt. of Customs (Prev) equal to 275 less 150 = 125 posts. Total = 183 posts.

The calculations carried out or presented to CAT appears to be incorrect and partisan in nature. As on date, it can be seen from the Civil List of Jan-2015, that the working strength of Appraisers (both Direct & Promotee) are 3%, share in promotion as per 13:2:1 is 6%. Their share in Promotee Grp-A (JC & ADC) is 148 out of 160, in DC, it is 158 out of 200. In AC/DC (excluding Temporary posts) the appraisers are 195 out of total 341.

Now the time has come to point out that though the present ratio is grossly inadequate to the Central Excise cadre, the Board should not only negate the Allahabad CAT judgement but also devise a mechanism so that all the stakeholders get adequate representations at each level in Grp-A posts.

     However, the Direct IRS Association filed an Appeal(Writ) in the Allahabad High Court against the said order and obtained an interim order, wherein the process (as directed by CAT) has been allowed but restraining its actual implementation. Impleading petition in the said writ petition has also been filed by Shri Ashish Bajpeyi, Jt. Secretary, AIACEGEO.

Matter is now posted to next month for admission and final hearing. CESA, Mumbai appeal to one and all not to panic. In all the jugglery that is taking place, it appears that the ultimate beneficiaries will be the Examiners & Appraisers, although their numbers are small, but their jumps are too high in the matter of career progression and the Board is always favourable to them and unkind to the other stakeholders. 

***********************