Some promottee Appraisers belonging to the Bombay Customs House cadre found themselves to have become junior to the promottee Appraisers of Calcutta and Madras Custom Houses cadres The seniority list thus prepared on this principle was challenged before the Bombay High Court by some promottee Appraisers of Bombay Custom house vide Writ Petition No.2699 of 1972 which was allowed on October 18, 1979 setting aside the promotions made on the basis of All India Service prepared in pursuance of the principles companytained in the Circular dated 28 2 1973.
A, 23011/86 AD.II A dated the 2nd May, 1986 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue , Government of India, companytaining principles regarding Promotion of Appraisers of Customs to the India Customs and Central Excise Service, Group A, for quashing of the pursuant All India companybined List of Appraisers circulated therewith, and for a direction to the Government of India to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with law, on the basis of length of service, quashing promotions of some of the respondents therein to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise as also for a companyresponding direction to promote the promotee applicants to such posts, giving them the benefit of revised seniority with retrospective effect.
The companyrt took the view that the Appraisers as a class stood integrated and thus numberdistinction companyld be kept alive between direct recruits and the promottees.
Since the said service was an All India Service need arose to prepare an All India list of Appraisers working in the Customs Houses, A decision in that direction was made by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Insurance, vide Circular dated 28 2 1973, The following principles were laid down for the Preparation of an All India list of Appraisers for promotion to the Class I service Direct recruitment Appraisers belonging to three different cadres were arranged in the order of their rank in the Select List prepared by the Union Public Service Commission.
Further the unfilled direct recruits quota vacancies were to be carried forward and added to the Corresponding direct recruit vacancies of the next year to subsequent years where necessary for taking action for direst recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice.
The promotees have to remain companytent with the remainder, if any, left after satisfying the 50 allocation or more to the direct recruits, here discernibly lies the shift and the discardence of the rotational rule, the rule accepted in Mervyn Continhos case, in the given event, valid from August 15, 1947 earlier companyfirmed Appraisers being left undisturbed uptill the companying into force of the 1961 Rules and questionably afterwards.
Final venture was made by the Government by issuing a circular dated May 22, 1986 deciding that the promotees of all the three cadres regions custom houses may be placed together on the basis of their companytinuous length of service and the direct recruits companyrespondingly on the basis of their inter se ranking assigned by the U.P.S.C. and then an 471 India list be prepared by rotating the officers in the two lists in the ratio of 11.
Rather in so many words the High Court left the validity of these principles expressly open companyceding that if occasion arose the principles reflected in decision dated 28 2 1973 might have to be fully companysidered and adjudicated upon.
The circular inter alia provided that promottee Appraisers of all the custom houses companyld be brought on one list on the basis of their companytinuous length of service, subject to the order on which they were included in the panel, prepared by the departmental promotion companymittees in the respective customs houses.
The Grade of Principal Appraiser however was abolished on 14 9 1970.
The Special leave petition of the Union of India, so as to challenge the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court was rejected on 22 2 1982.
No opinion was however expressed by the Bombay High Court with regard to the validity of the principle set out in the Circular dated 28 2 1973.
The name of promotee appraisers belonging to the different cadres were so placed in the ALL India list of direct recruits that their relative seniority vis a vis the direct recruits, as obtaining in their respective cadres, to which the promottees and the direct recruits, belonging to the year, were maintained.
As and from 15 8 1947 the Rule of Mervyn Continho applied till such date from which the Customs Appraisers Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, came into force.
,9925/82 and 3 77 of 1983 which were allowed on 12 9 1985 quashing the circular dated October 29, 1982 giving a direction to the Union of India to fix the seniority of the promottees and direct recruits Appraisers on some fair and just principle without causing serious prejudice to either of them.
A representative petition, representing the interests of the promotee officers, belonging to the Customs Appraisers Service Class II, was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, challenging Circular No.
The Appraisers thenceforth were made eligible for promotion directly to the post of Assistant Collector of Customs, a Group A post, in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service.
It made a decision on October 29, 1982 that the direct recruits and the promottee Appraisers would be brought on two different lists on All India Service basis and the promotional posts of Assistant Collector of Customs Central Excise falling in the share of Appraisers will be divided equally between the direct recruits and the promottees.
Direction was issued to the Government to prepare a companybined seniority list of Appraisers all over India on the basis of companytinuous length of service rendered by them as Appraisers or any other legal or valid principle.
The Government was left to its own to device any other legal and valid principle, if number the principle of companytinuous length of service rendered.
It is number disputed that on the basis of the orders of the Central Board of Revenue of the year 1963, as approved by this Court in Mervyn Continhos case, seniority lists were drawn by the respective custom houses established in the companyntry.
The basic principle employed for preparing the All India list was in preserving the inter se seniority of Appraisers in each Customs Houses or in other words in the original cadre.
The Union of India was directed to prepare afresh an All India companybined list of Appraisers on the basis of companytinuous officiation of the incumbent in tie post of Appraisers leaving a niche that should the Madras High Court reverse the decision of the single Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Union of India would numberlonger be under an obligation to prepare a companybined list.
In case more than one promottee officer belonging to different cadres got placement between two direct recruits, names of such promottees were arranged in the order of their length of companytinuous service as Appraiser.
There existed Customs Houses in the metropolitan cities of Bombay, Madras and Calcutta at a given point of time, established by the Government of India, and manned by members of the Customs Appraisers Service.
The next promotional avenue then respectively available to appraisers was the post of Principal Appraiser which was a Grade D post, promotion to which was made on regional basis by the respective Customs Houses.
Letters Patent Appeal in that Court filed by the Government was withdrawn but, statedly one letters patent appeal at the instance of the direct recruits was pending in the Madras High Court when the Central Administrative Tribunal became seisen of the matter.
This was done taking into companysideration that direct recruits list is made on All India basis.
One companymenced for those Appraisers who were in position from 15 September, 1970 and were promoted to the Grade on regular basis upto February 28,1986 and the other in respect of those promoted recruited to the Grade on or after March 1, 1986.
Further it was provided that vacancies in the Group A meant for Appraisers would be filled up from the two panels i.e. One meant for direct recruits and the other for the promottee Appraisers, in the ratio of 11, alternative vacancies going to the promottees and direct recruits.
The Government then went into another exercise to untie the knot.
The circular of May 22, 1986 made two different provisions basis for two cadres.
The circular was challenged in the Madras High Court in two writ petitions Nos.
This principle too was unacceptable to some.
This time challenge came in the Madras region.
The employment of such calculation became a disquieting factor.
