Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Shyam Lal Meena vs M/O Finance on 21 January, 2026
1 OA.723/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
O.A.No.723/2016
Dated this Wednesday the 21st day of January, 2026.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)
Hon'ble Mr.Umesh Gajankush, Member (Judicial).
Shyam Lal Meena
Working as Income-Tax Officer (Group "B") post,
In the office of Income Tax Officer 8(1)-3, Room No.662,
Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020, and
Residing at: B-1803, 18th Floor, Chaturbhuj CHS Ltd.,
Plot No.61/62, Sector-21, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai,
State of Maharashtra, Pin Code - 410 210. ..Applicant.
( By Advocate Shri R.G. Walia ).
Versus
1. Union of India, through
Secretary,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block,
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST=
Hemant Anant
Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym=
cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber=
44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241
13109, telephoneNumber=
0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7
Mahabal
New Delhi - 110 001.
a126121, title=3273
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
(CCA) Cadre Controlling Authority,
3rd Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400 020.
4. DOPT (Department of Personnel and Training),
Through its Secretary,
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel &
2 OA.723/2016
Public Grievances and Pension,
(Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT),
New Delhi - 110 001. ..Respondents.
( By Advocate Shri P. Khosla ).
Order reserved on 09.01.2026
Order pronounced on : 21.01.2026
ORDER
Per : Shri Krishna, Member (A)
The applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to claim the following reliefs:-
"a) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records and proceedings which led to the passing of the impugned Orders i.e.
(i) Impugned Order dated 3.6.2016, i.e. Annx. "A1",
(ii) Impugned Order dated 31.08.2016 i.e. Annx.
"A2",
(iii) Impugned Departmental Rules of 1998 only to the extent it denied the benefit of OM dated Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal 23.12.1970, i.e. Annx. "A3", and a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
(iv) Impugned Promotion Order dated 09.04.2002 (Recruitment Year: 2000-2001 (only to the extent of Applicants non-consideration), i.e. Annx. "A4", and after going through its proprietary, legality and constitutional validity be pleased to quash and set aside the same with full consequential benefits.
b) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to hold and declare that in view of the judgment in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Dated 15.07.2014 the Applicant is entitled to the 3 OA.723/2016 Concessional Passing Standard and accordingly direct the respondents to modify the result of the applicant for the year 1999 of the Income-Tax Officer Departmental Qualifying Examination.
c) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records of the case and accordingly order and direct the Respondents to modify the result of the Applicant for the year 1999 and to declare him as "PASSED" on Concessional Standard in the Income- Tax Officer Departmental Qualifying Examination 1999 with full consequential benefits of promotion to the post of Income-Tax Officer for the year 2000-2001 with seniority, back wages, pay fixation etc.
d) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to hold, direct and declare that in consequence of the Applicant being declared as PASSED in the Examination of the year 1999, a Review DPC be conducted for considering the case of the Applicant for the Recruitment Year: 2000-2001 and promote him with full consequential benefits of seniority, further promotion if any, difference of back wages, pay fixation etc.
e) Any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 facts and circumstances of the case.
f) Costs of this Original Application be provided for."
2. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant has filed O.A.458/2015 which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.08.2015 by directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 27.05.2015 filed by the applicant. The same 4 OA.723/2016 was followed by the subsequent representations dated 07.09.2015, 23.10.2015 and legal notices dated 14.12.2015 and 29.07.2016 to implement the directions of the Tribunal given in the order dated 28.08.2015. The respondents have issued the impugned order on 03.06.2016. Thereafter, the applicant has filed this O.A. 2.1. During the pendency of this O.A., the applicant has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Hon'ble High Court vide order and judgment dated 17.12.2025 was pleased to direct the Tribunal to list the matter on 23.12.2025 under the heading for "Final Disposal" with a condition that no adjournments shall be granted to the parties but for any exceptional circumstances. Accordingly this case was heard.
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant MahabalDN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 was a direct recruit Inspector of Income-Tax (ITi) of the 1992 batch. He joined the post of Income Tax Inspector (ITI) on 01.09.1994. The next promotional post available to the applicant is the post of Income-Tax Officer (ITO). The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) issued an OM dated 23.12.1970 providing relaxation and standard of passing examinations for 5 OA.723/2016 SC/ST. Accordingly for the post of ITO the Departmental Qualifying Examination conducted provided for 5% concession in the Passing Standard for SC/ST candidates. The General Standard Passing was fixed 60% aggregate and 5% concession was granted i.e. 55% was fixed for SC/ST candidates to qualify in the said examination.
3.1. It has been submitted that the DoPT issued OM dated 22.07.1997 taking away the benefit of concessional standard in passing of the examination based on the Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vinod Kumar vs. Union of India, JT 1996(8) S.C. 643. However, the said judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar was declared to be per-incuriam and not a good law by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal Court in the judgment dated 15.07.2014 in the case of Rohtas a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Bhankhar & Others vs. Union of India & Another, in Civil Appeal Nos.6046-6047/2004 and DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 was declared as illegal and quashed and set aside. Based on the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applicant has submitted that he is entitled for benefit of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 15.07.2014. He 6 OA.723/2016 made a representation to the respondents on 27.05.2015. However, no reply was received. Therefore, the applicant has filed the OA.No.458/2015 which was disposed of by directions dated 28.08.2015. He made 2 representations and 2 legal notices as discussed herein before. The respondents have passed the impugned order, which has been challenged in this O.A. 3.2. It has been submitted that in the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to modify the 1996 selection for the post of Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade-B/Grade-I). Therefore, the similar benefit has to be extended to the applicant which was denied to him in the year 1999 in respect of DoPT OM dated 23.10.1970. It has been submitted that the respondents have Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal illegally denied the relaxation in passing of the departmental a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 examination of 5% concessional standard for the post of Income Tax Officer.
3.3. It has been submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra) and declaration of DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 as illegal, OM dated 23.12.1970 was restored. Therefore, the applicant 7 OA.723/2016 should have been promoted against the ST vacancies in the recruitment year 2000-2001 as he ought to have been declared as passed in the year 1999 for being eligible for promotion to the post of Income-Tax Officer on 06.01.2000 for the Recruitment Year 2000-2001.
3.4. The applicant has placed reliance on the DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970, the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra).
4. After issuance of notice the respondents have filed their reply and contested the O.A. 4.1. It has been submitted that the Departmental Examination Rules, 1998 categorically required the candidate to secure a minimum of 50% marks in each of the subjects such as that he Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal had to secure an aggregate of 60% which the applicant failed to a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 secure. It is submitted that the relevant Rules in 1998 prohibited grant of concessional standard, the question of consequential grant thereof to the applicant does not arise. It has been submitted that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment dated 15.07.2014 have already been implemented in respect of only those SC/ST candidates who appeared in the 8 OA.723/2016 Section Officer/Stenographers (Grade-B/Grade-I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996. 4.2. It has been further submitted that the benefit of Relaxed Standard of passing (which was not available for a period of 3 years i.e. with effect from 22.07.1997 till 03.10.2000) is applicable to all the candidates who had appeared for the Exams. It cannot be restored for a single applicant. It has been submitted that the DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 cannot be treated as illegal and unconstitutional and cannot be quashed as the same would eventually result in violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of B.K. Pavitra.
4.3. It has been submitted that any attempt to grant concession to the applicant in the examination would lead to eventual Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal appointment in the ST quota by promotion to the post of ITO and a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 post rendering of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 8 SCC 212; S. Panneer Selvam & Ors. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.6631- 6632/2015 dated 27.08.2015; and B.K. Pavitra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No.2368/2011, decided on 9 OA.723/2016 09.02.2017, there cannot be any reservation in promotion. The question, therefore, granting any concession and declaring the applicant 'Passed' by the concessional standard does not arise.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondents.
5.1. It has been submitted that as a consequence of setting aside the OM dated 22.07.1997, the said relaxation has to be implemented in so far as the applicant is concerned as he has approached not only the respondents but also the CAT for redressal of his grievances. Thus, the respondents cannot deny the benefit of the law as declared by the Constitutional Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra). It has been submitted that the law laid down Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal in the case of M.Nagaraj, S. Panneer Selvam and B.K. Pavitra a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 cannot be applied in an arbitrary, discriminatory and whimsical manner. The respondents despite the above law have continuously granted reservation of post, relaxation in passing standard and all other benefits to the reserved candidates till the year 2016-2017.
5.2. It has been further submitted that the stand of the 10 OA.723/2016 respondents is thus not only arbitrary and discriminatory but is absolutely illegal in respect of a period between 22.07.1997 till 02.10.2000, when the judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj was not even available. The Constitution Bench judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj is dated 16.10.2006 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Rohtas Bhankhar's case has categorically noted and referred to the judgment of M. Nagaraj in Para 8 of the said judgment. Thus, it is absolutely unfair, arbitrary and illegal on the part of the respondents not to have given effect to the law as laid down in Rohtas Bhankhar's case.
5.3. It has been submitted that no such stand in respect of the law laid down in the case of M. Nagaraj etc. has been raised by the respondents to reject the representation of the applicant vide Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal impugned order dated 03.06.2016. Thus, to supply reason in the a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 affidavit which is absolutely contrary to the law is uncalled for. It has been submitted that since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared the OM dated 22.07.1997 as unconstitutional and thus, the effect of the same is nullified from the date it is issued. Thus, the consequential effect of the same would be that the applicant is entitled to have been declared as 'Passed' on relaxed standard 11 OA.723/2016 in the year 1999 itself. This would obviously result in consequential promotion for the year 2000-2001 to the post of Income Tax Officer.
5.4. It has been further submitted that the respondents have given the benefit of reservation in all available cadres till now and thus to selectively take a stand of not granting the benefit of a Constitution Bench judgment dated 15.07.2014 for the period of 1999, when the judgment in the case of M. Nagaraj was not even available is nothing but absolute highhandedness and whimsical stand of the respondents. It has been submitted that the DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970 granting the relaxation in qualification of the SC/ST candidates was in force for about 27 years until the OM dated 22.07.1997 was introduced / issued purely on the basis of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal the judgment in the case of S. Vinod Kumar (Supra) which has a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 been declared per-incurium as not a good law by Constitution Bench vide judgment dated 15.07.2014 in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar.
5.5. It has been submitted that OM dated 22.07.1997 which was in force till 02.10.2000 was declared as illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the DoPT OM dated 03.10.2000 12 OA.723/2016 was issued and the said relaxation in qualification was reintroduced. Thus, the benefit of the said judgment is only for the period between 22.07.1997 and 02.10.2000. The applicant's case falls within this particular period and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court directing the Union of India to follow the law laid down in Constitutional Bench judgment covers the applicant's case.
5.6. The applicant has relied and submitted a copy of judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.2045/2014 decided on 28.02.2017 in the case of The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Republican Employees Union, through its General Secretary & Others vs. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & 2 Others, wherein it was Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal held that the DoPT OM dated 03.10.2000 has effect of restoring a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 the benefits and it is applied for the period 22.07.1997 to 03.10.2000 also and the order of the Tribunal was set aside. It has been submitted that the applicant's case is fully covered by the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court which is binding on this Tribunal as well as the respondents.
6. The respondents in turn have filed reply to the rejoinder of 13 OA.723/2016 the applicant, reiterating the stand taken in the reply and no new points have been made.
7. During course of arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.R.G. Walia, has vehemently argued the case on the basis of pleadings and placed reliance on the DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970, DoPT OM dated 03.10.2000, Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra) and judgment of jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Republican Employees Union, through its General Secretary & Others vs. The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & 2 Others, in Writ Petition No.2045/2014 decided on 28.02.2017. He further submitted that all the judgments pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal retrospective in nature unless they have been declared a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 prospective in the same judgment. He has further placed reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of P.V. George and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2007) 3 SCC 557, wherein it has been held that "law declared by a court will have a retrospective effect if not otherwise stated to be so specifically.14 OA.723/2016
8. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.P. Khosla on the other hand has submitted that the O.A. is barred by delay and laches as it was filed in the year 2016 while the applicant is seeking promotion from the year 1999. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59. He further placed reliance on the Departmental Circular of 1998 issued regarding examination. He further submitted that if the O.A. is allowed the applicant will disturb the seniority of other employees.
Since the applicant is not made any employee as private respondents in the representative capacity, the O.A. suffers from non-joinder of parties. He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Yadav vs. State of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal U.P. & Anr., 2011 (6) SCC 570.
a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
9. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the documents and pleadings filed on record. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the same.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised the issue of limitation and submitted that the O.A. is barred by delay and laches in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the 15 OA.723/2016 case of M.K. Sarkar (Supra).
11. We find that the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar and others vs. Union of India has decided the legality of OM dated 22.07.1997 vide judgment dated 15.07.2014 and declared it illegal and restored the OM dated 23.12.1970 by which the relaxation of concession was given to the SC/ST candidates. This judgment of the Constitution Bench dated 15.07.2014 has given the cause of action to the applicant. The applicant has filed representation before the respondents on 27.05.2015 which was not decided by the respondents, therefore, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.458/2015. This Tribunal has directed the respondents to decide his representation. However, the Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal respondents did not decide the same, therefore, he made further a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 representations dated 07.09.2015, 23.10.2015 and sent legal notices dated 14.10.2015 and 29.07.2016. It is only thereafter the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 and applicant has approached this Tribunal again by filing O.A. on 18.10.2016. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant was continuously pursuing his grievance in view of the judgment of 16 OA.723/2016 Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the O.A. is not hit by delay and laches.
12. The learned counsel for the respondents have raised second ground that the relief to the applicant will disturb the seniority of other candidates. However, we find that the applicant is not asking for changing the seniority of other employees, he is only asking that his case should be considered in view of the DoPT OM dated 23.12.1970 which has been restored in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Rohtas Bhankhar and, therefore, he is entitled for 5% concession in the Standard of Passing of Marks. In view of the above we reject the contention of respondents that the OA suffers from non-joinder of the parties Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal as the applicant is not claiming that any employee senior to him a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 should be reverted on his promotion.
12.1. Regarding the contention of the respondents that the concession was not given in view of the rule for conducting the departmental examination issued in 1998, we find that the respondents have not adduced any evidence to show whether the said rule was statutory rule issued under Article 309 which 17 OA.723/2016 requires the sanction of Hon'ble President. Secondly, the said Rule was issued pursuant to the DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 which has been quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court being illegal and earlier OM has been restored as is clear from the subsequent OM dated 03.10.2000 which has restored the earlier concession granted in the OM dated 23.12.1970. Therefore, any such rule also becomes illegal in view of the judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Bhankhar (Supra).
13. We find that the applicant is asking for modification of relaxation of the year 1999 to the extent that he should be declared 'Passed' by granting him concession of 5% in the qualifying marks as was the case before issue of OM dated Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal 22.07.1997. We, further, find that the OM dated 22.07.1997 was a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 issued pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Vinod Kumar which has been declared as per-incurium and not a good law by the Constitution Bench, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of concession. We, further, find that the applicant is not asking for disturbing seniority of any other employee. He is only asking for his 18 OA.723/2016 entitlement to the promotion to the post of ITO for the panel year 1999.
14. The contention of the respondents that the concession in the departmental examination was not available to the SC/ST candidates for the period from 22.07.1997 till 22.10.2000 and have placed reliance on the DoPT OM dated 30.09.2016, we have gone through the said OM. We find that the said OM was issued pursuant to the Contempt Petition (C)No.314/2016 in SLP (C)No.4831/2012, Samta Andolan Samiti through its President vs. Sanjay Kothari & Ors., and pertains to reservation in promotion. The applicant in this O.A. is not asking for the reservation in promotion but only relaxation of standard of 5% in passing of the examination. We, further, find that the reservation Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal in promotion has been upheld by the 3 Bench judgment of Hon'ble a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. Lachmi Narain Gupta & Ors., dated 28.01.2022 in Civil Appeal No.629/2022.
15. Regarding claim of the respondents that the concession was not available for the period from 22.07.1997 to 03.10.2000, we find that the same issue was examined by the Hon'ble High Court 19 OA.723/2016 of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2045/2014 in the case of The Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd Republican Employees Union, through its General Secretary & Others (Supra), wherein the order of the Tribunal was challenged. The Hon'ble High Court has listed the issue in Para 3, as under:-
"3. The questions that are posed for our consideration in the instant petition are (I) as to whether the Central Administrative Tribunal failed to consider the correct interpretation of the office memorandum dated 3.10.2000, in view of the expressions "restoration" and "inoperative"
contained therein. (II) Whether the amendment incorporated in the Constitutional provision that Article 335 will be operative for the purposes of prescribing lower standard of assessment of S.C. and S.T. Category candidates in matter of promotion from the date of assent of the President of India or from the date of issuance of office memorandum by the Government of India and the effect of the issuance of office memorandum on 3.10.2000. (III) Whether the office memorandum read with the constitutional provision has an effect of restoring the position prevailing prior to decision of the Government of India and its Order of Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal 1997 withdrawing 1970 Order issued by the Department of a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Personnel relaxing the standard for SC/ST Government employees in the departmental competitive/confirmation and promotional examination. (IV) Whether it would be obligatory on the part of the respondent No.3 to give effect to the amendment of Article 335 of the Constitution of India from 3.10.2000 i.e. the date of issuance of office memorandum by the Union of India though the President of India assented to the amendment on 8.9.2000 and lastly (V) the effect of the Constitutional Bench's decision in Civil Appeal Nos.6046-6047 of 2004 in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar & Others Vs. Union of India & Anr. Decided by the Apex on 15.7.2014."20 OA.723/2016
16. After examining all the aspects and judicial pronouncements on the judgments as well as DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997, 23.12.1997, 17.07.1971, 21.01.1977 and 31.01.1978 which prescribes relaxation of standard in departmental examination for promotion as well as DoPT OM dated 22.07.1997 and DoPT OM dated 03.10.2000 and various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has held in Para 17 to 20 of the judgment as under:-
"17] The Apex Court in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar observed that, though Article 16(4A) had been brought into Constitution by the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995 with effect from 17.6.1995, the same was not noticed in the matter of S. Vinod Kumar's case and as such the decision is per incurium. It must be noticed that post decision in S. Vinod Kumar by virtue of Constitution Eighty-seven Amendment Act, proviso has been appended to Article 335 of the Constitution with effect from 8.9.2000./ The Apex Court in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar also Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal considered the view taken by the Constitutional Bench in the a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 matter of M. Nagraj as well as in the matter of Kuldeep Singh and agreed with the decision in Kuldeep Singh's case and approved the same. In para-10 of the Judgment in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar the Apex Court observed thus:
"We are respectful agreement with the decision in Kuldeep Singh and approve the same. Ordinarily, we would have sent the matter to the Regular Bench for disposal of the matter but having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi (for short "the Tribunal") has followed S. Vinod Kumar which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also illegal, in our view, 21 OA.723/2016 the agony of the appellants need not be prolonged as they are entitled to the reliefs"
18] The Supreme Court in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar while allowing the appeal has also set aside the memorandum dated 22.7.1997 declaring it to be illegal. The effect of declaration of office memorandum dated 22.7.1997 illegal is that, the earlier position existed prior thereto stands restored. In the matter before the Supreme Court a direction was issued to modify the results of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination conducted for selection of Section Officers/Stenographers by providing for reservation and to extend all consequential benefits to the appellants before the Supreme Court. The same course needs to be adopted in the instant matter. It would be appropriate to refer to some of the observations in the matter of Kuldeep Singh. The Supreme Court in the matter of Kuldeep Singh in para 22 of the Judgment has observed that, "The object of the said Office Memorandum dated 21.1.1977, is to provide an adequate opportunity of promotion to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. By reason of the provisions of Article 16(4) of the Constitution a treatment to the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes different from that given to others in the matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State does not violate the Fundamental Right to equality Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal of opportunity for all citizens in such matters guaranteed by a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Article 16(1) of the Constitution. It is now well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court that the reservation in favour of backward classes of citizens, including the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as contemplated by Article 16(4) can be made not merely in respect of initial recruitment but also in respect of posts to which promotions are to be made". The said view taken in the Kuldeep Singh's case has been conferred by the Constitutional Bench in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar. 19] The Constitutional Bench in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar observed that the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal is unsustainable and deserves to be 22 OA.723/2016 set aside. The Apex Court in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar's case has specifically declared the office memorandum dated 22.7.1997 to be illegal. The office memorandum issued post constitutional amendment dated 3.10.2000 also restored the benefits/concessions/relaxations prevailing prior to 22.7.1997 and it does not confer any new benefit. The view taken by the Tribunal that the decision of the Union Government granting relaxation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories candidates in the matter of promotion would apply after issuance of office memorandum, is unsustainable. Since the Supreme Court had declared office memorandum to be illegal and even otherwise looking to the language applied in the memorandum dated 3.10.2000, view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the decision of granting relaxation would apply post issuance of memorandum is unsustainable. The view as taken by the Tribunal if permitted to hold the field, it would defeat and frustrate the public policies in the matter of reservation. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
20] For the reasons recorded above, we pass following order:
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.Digitally signed by Hemant Anant Mahabal
DN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal
(ii) The Order passed by the Central Administrative a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 Tribunal dated 14th March 2014 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to give effect to the office memorandum dated 17.6.1995 and apply it to the cases of the petitioners and issue appropriate consequential orders.
(iv) The office memorandum shall be deemed to apply since the earlier decision withdrawing the concession dated 22.7.1997 has been declared to be illegal by the Constitutional Bench in the matter of Rohtas Bhankhar's case."23 OA.723/2016
17. In view of the above discussion and judgment of Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court as discussed above, we are of the view that the applicant is entitled for the relaxation of standard to the extent of 5% in passing the departmental examination.
Therefore, the respondents are directed to convene a review DPC and consider the claim of the applicant after giving him concession of 5% in the qualifying marks and promote if he is otherwise fit to the post of Income Tax Officer with all consequential benefits. The above order is to be complied within 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
18. The O.A. is allowed, in terms of the above order and directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. All pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
Digitally signed by Hemant Anant MahabalDN: C=IN, CN=Hemant Anant Mahabal, O=Personal, ST= Hemant Anant Maharashtra, postalCode=400602, pseudonym= cd2ae49d8bf44fb5ab2d290f61a2b198, serialNumber= 44ef8f218df6316dce768bd9807f522585fec3a6ac1fd6a022909607241 13109, telephoneNumber= 0df695a144e63d3cd136c520255a48d230ca63775b412a272123c7dc7 Mahabal a126121, title=3273 Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.23 16:38:34+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 (Umesh Gajankush) (Shri Krishna) Member (J) Member (A).
H