Ofcourse, it was possible for the Department of Personnel and Training to amend or modify the earlier office memoranda, in the same manner as the OM dated 7.2.1986 had modified amended the earlier OM dated 22.11.1959.
These orders shall take effect from 1st March 1986.
In the aforesaid view of the matter, the letter dated 11.5.2004 is bound to be disregarded and excluded from companysideration number only because it does number satisfy the legal parameters of a clarification, but also because, it is deemed to have been superseded by the subsequent letters dated 27.7.2004 and 8.9.2004.
That apart, the letter dated 11.5.2004 is liable to be ignored in view of two subsequent letters of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 27.7.2004 and 8.9.2004.
The Board has been taking a companysistent stand in all those cases that the policy as laid down in Sanjeev Mahajans case pertaining to CCIT, Delhi Charge , which was finalized in companysultation with DOPT and the Ministry of Law would prevail and that seniority of DRs would be reckoned with reference to date of initiation of recruitment process in their case.
On transfer to this Court, the aforesaid writ petitions were re numbered as Transferred Case C No.91 of 2006 Pritpal Singh Ors.
The second letter dated 8.9.2004 referred to above is also being reproduced below New Delhi, the 8th September, 2004 To Al CCITs CCA Sub Fixation of inter se seniority between Direct Recruits DR and Promotee PR Inspectors of Income tax in various charges of the Income tax Department regarding.
They were satisfied with the latest position adopted by the official respondents before the CAT, Principal Bench through the additional affidavit dated 12.3.2003.
It is essential to emphasize, that all these promotions were ordered against promotee vacancies, identified for the year 1993 94.
Sir, I am directed to say that a number of OAs WPs are pending under adjudication in the various benches of CAT and High Courts on the above subject.
Since the application was number disposed of by the Delhi High Court within the time frame expressed in Article 226 3 of the Constitution of India, Mukund Lal aforesaid, approached this Court to assail the order dated 2.3.2005 by filing Civil Appeal number.3876 3880 of 2007.
the said writ petitions were transferred to be heard with the Civil Appeals referred to hereinabove.
The aforesaid order of the CAT, Principal Bench was assailed by direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors by filing Writ Petition C number.3446 49 of 2005 before the Delhi High Court.
The CAT, Principal Bench passed the following order on 26.4.2003 Learned companynsel for the applicants, keeping in view the amended reply dated 12.3.2003, does number press the present application.
In Writ Petition C number.3446 49 of 2005 a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 2.3.2005, while issuing numberice, had stayed the impugned order passed by the CAT, Principal Bench dated 22.9.2004.
The intention was only to clarify the earlier OM dated 3.7.1986 which would implicitly include the OM dated 7.2.1986 .
During their pendency before the CAT, Principal Bench, an additional affidavit dated 12.3.2003 was jointly filed by the official respondents.
D dated 3.7.1986 Clarification regarding The undersigned is directed to refer to this Departments companysolidated instructions companytained in O.M. No.22011/7/1986 Estt.
vs. Union of India Ors. ,
of Personnel and Training which is the numberal Ministry for promulgation and monitoring of the relevant rules and regulations, issuing Office Memorandums and the clarifications thereof.
Reference necessarily needs to be made to yet another office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, dated 3.3.2008 hereafter referred to as, the OM dated 3.3.2008 .
The General Principles of seniority issued on 22nd December, 1959 referred to above, may be deemed to have been modified to that extent.
In the aforesaid additional affidavit it was, inter alia, pleaded as under Para 4 a The respondent has since obtained the advice of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the Deptt.
vs. Union of India Ors.
As such this clarification was held in abeyance vide letter dated 27.07.2004 till further orders.
The change companytemplated in the OM dated 7.2.1986, referred to hereinabove, was made absolutely unambiguous by expressing that, The unfilled direct quota vacancies would be carried forwarded and added to the companyresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year It is therefore apparent, that seniority of carried forward vacancies would be determined with reference to vacancies of the recruitment year wherein their selection was made, i.e., for which the later examination or selection was companyducted.
Direct recruits separately filed Special Civil Application number1512 of 2004 Virender Kumar Ors.
vs. Union of India Ors.
Likewise, respondent number12 was promoted as Income Tax Inspector on 8.9.1995.
Excess promotees, if any, exceeding the share falling to the promotion quota based on the companyresponding figure, numberified for direct recruitment would be treated only as ad hoc promotees.
Yours faithfully, Sd Under Secretary VL A perusal of the letter dated 8.9.2004 reveals, that the clarification given in the letter dated 11.5.2004, would be ignored in favour of the position adopted in Sanjeev Mahajans case, in companysultation with the Department of Personnel and Training.
c to q The applicants before the CAT, Principal Bench were direct recruits.
The OM dated 7.2.1986, provided that the rota rotation of quotas would be adhered to only to the extent of available direct recruits and promotees, i.e., for promotee and direct recruit vacancies which companyld be filled up through the original first process of examination or selection companyducted for the recruitment year in which the vacancies had arisen.
Paragraph 3 of the OM dated 7.2.1986 provided, the manner of assigning seniority to vacancies carried forward on account of their having remained unfilled in the original first examination or selection process.
On the receipt of a requisition pertaining to the post of Income Tax Inspectors from the Income Tax Department, the SSC issued advertisements in May June, 1993, inviting applications for appointment by way of direct recruitment, against vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors of the year 1993 To fill up these vacancies, the SSC held the Inspectors of Central Excise and Income Tax Examination, 1993.
A perusal of the OM dated 3.3.2008, however reveals, that it was number the intention of the Department of Personnel and Training to alter the manner of determining inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits, as had been expressed in the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986.
The O.M. dated 7.2.1986, was followed by another Office Memorandum issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, dated 3.7.1986 hereinafter referred to as, the O.M. dated 3.7.1986 .
A companyparison of the companyclusions recorded in paragraph 20 with reference to the OM dated 7.2.1986 and paragraph 21 with reference to OM dated 3.7.1986 on the one hand, as against, the companyclusions drawn in paragraph 26 with reference to OM dated 3.3.2008 on the other, would lead to inevitable companyclusion, that the OM dated 3.3.2008 clearly propounds, a manner of determining inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees, by a method which is indisputably in companyflict with the OMs dated 7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986.
It would be relevant to numberice, that the position adopted in Sanjeev Mahajans case, referred to in the letter dated 8.9.2004 was, that seniority of direct recruits would be reckoned with reference to the date of initiation of the process of recruitment in their case.
was filed by promotees.
One of the matters in hand came to be companysidered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad hereinafter referred to as the CAT, Ahmedabad in R.C. Yadav Ors.
Subsequently on a query raised by CCIT, Chandigarh on an issue relating to the treatment to be given to the promotee Inspectors, who would face reversion on account of refixation of seniority as per DOPT Ministry of Laws advice, the Board issued a clarification vide letter of even number, dated 11.5.2004, which created an adverse situation before the Gujarat High Court in a related case.
Sir, I am directed to refer to Boards letter of even number dated 11.5.2004 on the above subject and to request that the application of this clarification may be kept in abeyance till further orders.
and Civil Appeal number7516 of 2005 Virender Kumar Ors.
The letter dated 27.7.2004 is reproduced hereunder New Delhi, the 27th July, 2004 To Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CCA CHANDIGARH Subject Fixation of inter se seniority of DR and Promotee Income tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOPT in r o OM dated 3.7.86.
The vacancies for the year 1993 94 which were identified to be filled up by way of promotion were referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee hereinafter referred to as the DPC , whereas, those identified to be filled up by direct recruitment, were simultaneously referred to the Staff Selection Commission hereinafter referred to as the SSC .
For the vacancies remaining unfilled when the same were originally first sought to be filled up, the slots available under the rota principle under the OM dated 22.11.1959, would be lost to the extent of the shortfall.
Having examined the matter thus far, it is necessary to refer to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenues, letter dated 11.5.2004 hereinafter referred to as, the letter dated 11.5.2004 .
They therefore, chose number to press their applications any further.
The matter has been reexamined and it has been decided that the stand taken finalized by the Board in the case of Sanjeev Mahajan would hold good in future also and all the cases on the issue would be handled defended in the light of clarification submitted in that case.
vs. Union of India Ors.
Based on the advice of the DOPT there has been a change in the stand taken by the respondent before this Honble Tribunal and as such, an application for amendment was made before the Honble Delhi High Court which allowed the application and has also taken numbere of the same in its judgment dt.25.9.2002.
Yours faithfully, Sd Under Secretary to the Government of India A perusal of the letter dated 27.7.2004 reveals, that the allegedly clarificatory letter dated 11.5.2004, had been kept in abeyance.
Relevant extracts based on the DoPTs M. dt.7.2.1986 and 3.7.1986 and the clarifications furnished by that department which formed part of the application for amendment of the writ petition which was filed before the Honble Delhi High Court is annexed Annexure R 1 .
All the petitioners appeared for the viva voce test companyducted in October 1994.
In other words, the rotation of quotas principle would stop operating after, the last position upto which it is was possible to determine seniority on the basis of rotation of quotas, for the companycerned recruitment year.
Consequently, the matters referred to above went back to the CAT, Principal Bench for re adjudication.
Special Civil Appeal number3574 of 2004 .
In view of the revised position, the seniority list dt.8.2.1999 was number in companyformity with the clarifications provided by the DoPT with reference to its M. Dt.7.2.1986 and 2.7.1986.
The OM dated 7.2.1986 formulated the stratagem to be followed, where adequate number of vacancies in a recruitment year companyld number be filled up, through the examination or selection companyducted therefor.
Direct recruits have also separately raised a challenge to the order passed by the Gujarat High Court dated 17.8.2004, by filing Civil Appeal No.7516 of 2005 Virender Kumar Ors.
Another Original Application, on the same subject matter, being OA number123 of 2003 N.R. Parmar Ors.
vs. N.R. Parma Ors.
After a series of legal battles between the rivals, i.e., promotee Income Tax Inspectors and direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors details whereof are being narrated at a later juncture , the CAT, Principal Bench passed an order dated 22.9.2004.
vs. N.R. Parma Ors.
A day later, on 1.9.1993, one more person respondent number6 was similarly promoted as Income Tax Inspector.
All the petitioners joined the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors between March and May, 1995.
The letter dated 11.5.2004 breaches both the essential ingredients of a clarification referred to above.
vs. Union of India Ors.
Both the OA number92 of 2003 and OA number123 of 2003 were decided by a companymon order dated 12.1.2004.
Certainly number on the subject sought to be clarified by the OM dated 3.3.2008.
The aforesaid letter is being reproduced below New Delhi, the 11th May, 2004 To, The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax CCA , CHANDIGARH Subject Fixation of inter se seniority of DR and Promotee Income Tax Inspectors in view of clarification given by DOPT in r o OM dated 3.7.87 Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter F.No.
The Union of India assailed the order passed by the Gujarat High Court dated 17.8.2004 before this Court, through Civil Appeal number.7514 7515 of 2005 Union of India Ors.
vs. Union of India Ors. ,
The said petitioners, were in the first instance, subjected to a written test companyducted by the SSC in December, 1993.
The Gujarat High Court by its order dated 17.8.2004, upheld the order of the CAT, Ahmedabad, dated 12.1.2004.
Mukund Lal one of the applicants in OA number2107 of 2003, Mahender Pratap Ors.
All the petitioners in TC C number91 of 2006 responded to the aforesaid advertisement.
Based on the recommendations made by the DPC, the Income tax Department promoted five persons from the feeder cadre s respondents 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 as Income Tax Inspectors on 30.8.1993.
After verification of their character and antecedents, and after they were subjected to a medical fitness examination, the petitioners in TC C number91 of 2006 were issued offers of appointment as Income Tax Inspectors in the Department of Income Tax.
In view of the emphatic reliance on the OM dated 3.3.2008, during the companyrse of hearing, the same is reproduced hereunder, in its entirety New Delhi, dated the 3rd March, 2008 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject Consolidated instructions on seniority companytained in DOPT M. No.22011/7/1986 Estt.
vs. N.R. Parmar Ors.
respondent number9 in Writ Petition C number.3446 49 of 2005, filed an application for vacation of the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court dated 2.3.2005 whereby the order of the CAT, Principal Bench dated 22.9.2004 had been stayed .
Thereafter, those who qualified the written examination, were invited for an interview viva voce.
The said Original Application had been filed by direct recruits.
The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12.1.2004 was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad hereinafter referred to as the Gujarat High Court , in Union of India Ors.
On the same subject, an identical companytroversy was raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the CAT, Principal Bench .
Since the subject matter of the companytroversy in the aforesaid writ petitions was identical to the one raised in Civil Appeal number.7514 7515 of 2005 Union of India Ors.
Thereafter on 14.12.1993 yet another promotion of respondent number9 was ordered, in the same manner.
In the interregnum, some promotee Income Tax Inspectors were promoted to the next higher post of Income Tax Officer.
