GRP-A RRs... WATER ON A DUCK'S BACK...

For the publication of Group-A Recruitment Rules (RR), the Board kept the matter very close to their chest and moved swiftly to get it published on 22-Apr-2016, without including the 2118 temporary posts of AC.

Earlier, the Board had got the Grp-A RR approved by UPSC, but before its publication, the promotee IRS officers’ Association approached Mumbai CAT, as there was no mention of the 2118 temporary posts that were created in the CR. Predictably, Mumbai-CAT stayed the publication of the Grp-A RR. Thereafter, the entire direct Group-A officers showed their solidarity and unitedly with their best consultants, filed an affidavit containing the contention "that the temporary posts do not have any impact in revenue collection and because of the stay order, promotions to the posts of Principal Chief Commissioners and Chief Commissioners are held up and therefore revenue Collections are badly affected." However, Mumbai-CAT did not succumb to their theatrics and directed them to include the posts in the RR, in consultation with UPSC.

In our earlier CESA blogs, we have carried the day-today proceedings and disagreements in the CAT.  Thereafter, an order was passed on 18-Jan-2016. The officers of Chennai also got a direction from Chennai-CAT dated 25-Feb-2016 that the applicants should be consulted while framing the revised Group-A Recruitment Rules. Accordingly, they were called on 21-Apr-2016 and given a patient hearing, but on 22-Apr-2016, the Board published the Group-A Recruitment Rules.

In the said RR, in Schedule 1, there is a mention about 1 to 8 rows, covering posts of Principal Chief Commissioners (14 nos.), Chief Commissioners (38 nos.), Principal Commissioners (100 nos.), Commissioners (340 nos.), Additional Commissioners and Joint Commissioners (932 nos.), Deputy Commissioners (801 nos.) and Assistant Commissioners (1249 nos.). The above posts were created including Principal Chief Commissioners and Principal Commissioners in the Cadre Restructuring-2014 along with 2118 temporary Assistant Commissioners posts. Sadly, in the newly published RRs also, there is no mention about these temporary 2118 posts of Assistant Commissioners.

The said RR does not appear to have the sanctity as it has not been issued neither in consultation with the UPSC nor with the Union Cabinet, as the earlier Cabinet had approved the creation of 2118 Temporary posts of Assistant Commissioners. The pressure, anxiety and impatience for the first time felt by the Direct Group-A officers made them realize that this time they may not be able to swallow the entire benefits of CR, but may have to share the benefits with their lower staff, if not on equal basis but at least on lesser basis.

The jolt of Chennai and Mumbai-CAT was not expected by them. Both the judgements grounded them from their arbitrariness and self-centered approach towards the benefits granted by the CR. 

Today, as per the Gr-A Civil List (2016) published by CBEC, out of the total ‘202’ officers in Joint/Addl Commissioner grade – ‘196’ are from Appraiser cadre, ‘’5’ are from Central Excise & ‘1’ is from Customs Preventive. Similarly, of the total ‘120’ officers in Dy Commissioner grade – ‘97’ are from Appraiser cadre, ‘21’ are from Central Excise & ‘2’ are from Customs Preventive.

Does any sane authority needs any other “PROOF” to justify making suitable AMENDMENTS in the Gr-A RRs? BUT THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE “MANAGED” IN OUR CBEC.

Recently on 03-May-2016, in the High Court of Delhi, observations were made by the Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakhru, who passed an order in W.P.(C) 441/2013 of M/s. Mangali Impex Ltd and (other WPs) ..... Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors..... Respondents, wherein the Court has observed that the DRI/DGCEI officers are not the Proper Officers as per the Section 28(11) of the Customs Act. The validity of the said section of the Customs Act and the role played by the officers are termed as improper. Such untrammelled power would indeed be arbitrary and violate of Article 14 of the Constitution. INTERPRETATION TO AVOID VICE OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY The Department cannot seek to rely upon Section 28(11) of the Act as authorising the officers of the Customs, DRI, the DGCEI etc. to exercise powers……..

The said observations and ruling is eye-catching and humiliating, as in the Court, junior officers represent these organizations, who had to face the wrath of the judiciary helplessly. Is CBEC so hollow that our officers do not have any protection as per the provisions of the law and are mandated to uphold/execute the same.

The officers, promoted in October-2014 and are now functioning as Assistant Commissioners and discharging their duty as per the powers delegated by the Board for the said post. Several Refund claims were passed / rejected, several SCNs were issued and adjudicated, several O-I-Os are issued, several appeals filed in Commissioner(Appeals) and in CESTAT, several affidavits must have been signed & submiited in High Courts as well as in the Supreme Court by these officers. As per the new RRs all the officers promoted to the temporary posts and are discharging their functions, certainly do not appear to have any legal sanctity. Board can’t function in such an illegal & unlawful manner, keeping the said posts and their functions prone to legal scrutiny and it is possible that the Trade may allege that the officers do not have the necessary authority & publicly humiliate them. CESA Mumbai leaves it to the all the learned seniors who are occupying great positions of power in our Board, that necessary action will be taken, before the things go out of control, like in the above mentioned High Court observations and thus jeopardizing the functions at field level.

The promotee officers now will be forced to approach the judiciary against their own senior officers for the shabby treatment and the opaque manner of publishing the said RRs against the observations of Mumbai and Chennai CAT.

The joint meeting which is scheduled tomorrow (28.05.2016) at Hyderabad by all the Associations, who are likely to take a final decision in this regard.

***********