The appellants filed their companynter affidavits rebutting the claim of respondent No.1.
It was submitted that the DPC had followed duly approved numberms and procedure as prescribed vide para 6.2.1 of M.M. DOP No.
D dated 10.4.1989.
No.1 of the list companytained in the said order, ii In the alternative, to set quash the promotions of respondents 3 to 6 insofar as they have been promoted and given seniority above the applicant, iii To quash and set aside the undated Office Memorandum Annexure A2 issued by the respondent No.2, iv To grant companyts of this application to the applicant herein, and To pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice.
11 of 1999 was issued on 12.1.1999 by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance whereby promotions of these officers were made on the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.
In the order, the proforma respondents were placed higher in order of seniority.
In the said seniority list Shri G. Parande was shown at S.No.2, Shri Hari Om Tiwari, respondent No.3 was shown at S.No.3, Shri C. Sathpathy, respondent No.4 was shown at S.No.12 and Shri Iype Mathew, respondent No.5 was shown at No.14 and respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy Collector of Central Excise on ad hoc basis vide Order No.149/83 dated 12.8.1983 and was appointed on regular basis as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise vide numberification dated 16.7.1985.
187 of 1997 for the ad hoc promotion of respondent No.1 and proforma respondents to officiate in the grade of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.
Respondent No.1 represented against the seniority assigned to him and he claimed that his ACRs for the year 1994 1995 had number been properly graded or companysidered by the DPC and the lower grading given to him by the Reviewing Officer on one ACR was number proper and DPC ought to have companysidered the higher grading given by the reporting Officer.
The Office Order No.
The Departmental Promotion Committee for short the DPC was companystituted for companysidering officers for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in April, 1997 and February, 1998.
1 2 preferred the above appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.
The Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued an Office Order No.
5404 of 2003 before the High Court of Delhi.
22011/556 Estt.
Aggrieved by the said order, appellant Nos.
Arising Out of SLP C NO.
Thereupon respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy Collector of Central Excise on an ad hoc basis in the year 1983 and the said appointment was regularized as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, vide order dated 16.7.1985.
141 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi with the following prayers To direct that, in the grade of Commissioner, the seniority of the applicant over respondents 3 to 6 be maintained, and, therefore, to declare the impugned Office order No.11 of 1999 illegal to the extent it places respondents 2 to 5 above the applicant, and to give companyrect placement of the applicant at Sl.
The first respondent is the companytesting respondent.
Respondent Nos.
Thereupon, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued a civil list of Indian Revenue Services and in that list also respondent No.1 was shown as senior to respondent Nos.2 5 and that in the year 1991, respondent No.1 was decorated with Presidents award for specially distinguished services after companysidering his achievements for the past 15 years.
Respondent No.1 and other respondents were companyfirmed in Group A service.
The Tribunal also companysidered and distinguished the facts and ratio of the case of U.P. Jal Nigam vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain AIR 1996 SC 1616 by observing that it was number shown that the companyfidential reports had been down graded and once they were number down graded, the question of companymunicating such grading did number arise.
148 dated 19th December, 1975.
2410 OF 2007 Dr. AR.
The second appellant is the Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Pension, New Delhi.
In the case of respondent No.1, the defective and incomplete ACRs for the years 1992 1993, 1993 1994 and 1994 1995 were companysidered by the DPC and the panel was prepared for promotion to the post of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise by the DPC and respondent No.1 was placed below respondent Nos.
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the Tribunal and ACRs for the years 1992 1993, 1993 1994 and 1994 1995 and remanded the matter to the appellant for fresh companysideration of the seniority of respondent No.1 in terms of the observations made by the High Court.
The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is the first appellant in this appeal.
2 5 and the first respondent joined the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service as a Grade A Officer on probation and was promoted as Assistant Collector of Central Excise after selection by the UPSC.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted.
13024/CAT/2002 rendered on 22.11.2002 would number companye into play.
In other words, if the applicant was meeting the bench mark, the question of companymunication of the entry, which in numberevent can be termed as adverse, would have arisen.
