Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Sanjeev Kumar vs Secretary Department Rervenue on 1 August, 2023
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00081/2021
Tuesday, this the 1st day of August 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Sanjeev Kumar,
S/o.Vidya Sagar Sah,
Aged 31 years,
Inspector of Central Tax & Central Excise,
O/o.the Superintendent of Central Tax and Central Excise,
Kizhakkambalam, Ernakulam District.
Residing at Central Excise Staff Quarters 110,
CSEZ P.O., Kakkanad, Cochin - 682 037. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.C.S.Gopalakrishnan Nair)
versus
1. Union of India,
represented by its Secretary,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Chairman,
Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs,
North Block, New Delh - 110 001.
3. Principal Chief Commissioner,
CGST & Central Excise,
Thiruvananthapuram Zone,
Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S.Press Road, Cochin - 682 018.
4. Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise,
Central Revenue Buildings,
I.S.Press Road, Cochin - 682 018.
5. Principal Chief Commissioner,
CGST & Central Excise,
Central Revenue Buildings,
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500 004.
-2-
6. Chairman, Staff Selection Commission,
Block No.12, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003.
7. Director, Staff Selection Commission,
Central Region 21-23, Lowther Road,
Allahabad - 211 002. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr.PC)
This application having been heard on 17 th July 2023, the Tribunal on
1st August 2023 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant, who is working as Inspector of Central Tax and Central Excise, under the 4 th respondent - Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Cochin has filed the O.A seeking the following relief :
1. To call for the records leading upto the issue of Annexure A-12 and quash the same.
2. To direct the respondents to transfer the applicant to Andhra Pradesh under the 5th respondent with all consequential benefits including seniority without delay as if he has joined in Andhra Pradesh Zone along with the successful candidates of CGLE 2011 who joined under the 5 th respondent in Andhra Pradesh Zone earlier.
3. To grant such other relief or reliefs that may be prayed for or that are found to be just and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.
4. Grant cost of this O.A.
2. The background to this matter is that the 6 th respondent - Staff Selection Commission (SSC), New Delhi had issued a Notice in the Employment News dated 19.03.2011 as per copy produced at Annexure A-1 -3- for holding the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2011. The applicant had then appeared for the said CGLE 2011 examination conducted by the 6th respondent. However, before the selection process could be completed some issues cropped up in relation to alleged malpractices committed by certain candidates during the examination. It appears that show cause notices were then issued by the SSC asking these candidates as to why their candidature in the said examination should not be cancelled and they also be barred from writing SSC Examinations for a period of five years. On receipt of these notices, the applicant along with a few others filed applications before the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal. There were similar applications by other candidates as well before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. Later the O.As filed before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal were allowed and the subsequent challenges to the orders in the O.A by the SSC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
3. The applicant submits that pursuant to the judgment in the matter of SSC through its Chairman & Anr. vs. Sudesh in C.A.No.2836-2838 of 2017 on 19.07.2017, by which the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, the SSC then published the results of the examination in the cases of the 42 candidates, including the applicant, whose results had been withheld. This was published in its letter dated 27.08.2018 wherein the applicant's name was at Sl.No.16 in the list of 42 candidates. The applicant submits that as per this letter he had been selected as Inspector of Central Excise and allotted to Andhra Pradesh. This was also intimated by the SSC -4- to the 2nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs, vide its letter dated 12.09.2018 produced at Annexure A-3. The applicant is shown at Sl.No.3 of this letter and posted to Andhra Pradesh as Inspector of Central Excise.
4. However, soon after this letter was issued on 12.09.2018, the 2nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs issued a letter to the 3rd respondent - Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Thiruvananthapuram Zone, Cochin, allotting the applicant in this O.A to Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram CGST Zone instead of the Andhra Pradesh Zone as had been directed by the SSC. A copy of the letter issued by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs dated 09.05.2019 has been produced at Annexure A-4. The applicant who is at Sl.No.3 of the list therein is clearly shown as allotted to Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram CGST Zone. Pursuant to the Annexure A-4 letter dated 09.05.2019, the 4th respondent - Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Cochin then issued 'an offer of appointment dated 02.07.2019 to the applicant' which has been produced at Annexure A-5. The applicant then joined duty on 23.07.2019 in the Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram CGST Zone.
5. It is the contention of the applicant that he had exercised his option in CGLE 2011 for the post of Inspector of Central Excise in Andhra Pradesh, ie., under the 5th respondent - Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hyderabad. He has furnished a part copy of the online option registration for CGLE, 2011 along with details regarding allotment -5- of candidates for the post of Inspector of Central Excise at Annexure A-7. It is submitted by him that he belongs to OBC category and had secured a total of 408.75 marks in the written test and interview put together. This information relating to his total marks was obtained through an application made under the RTI Act, a copy of which he has produced at Annexure A-8. His contention is that the lowest marks of the candidate who had got allotted into the Andhra Pradesh Zone as Inspector of Central Excise in the OBC category was 407.75 vide the information provided at Annexure A-7 (2). Thus, since he had got one mark higher (408.75 marks), he should have got the Andhra Pradesh Zone instead of the Kerala and Lakshadweep Zone. He also points out that the 6 th respondent, SSC, had actually allotted him the Andhra Pradesh Zone as per the Annexure A-3 communication as brought out earlier. Even if there was no vacancy in the Andhra Pradesh Zone, he contends that the 2 nd respondent, Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs should have given him a posting under the 5th respondent - Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hyderabad by adjusting him against any of the categories in the vacancies of the Inspector of Central Excise until a regular vacancy arose in the OBC category.
6. The applicant submits that it is a fact that appointments have been subsequently made to the post of Inspector in the OBC category under the 5th respondent. It is also submitted that the 2 nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs (CBIT&C) had no authority to change his allotment to another zone after the Annexure A-3 -6- communication by the SSC. It is contended that by this action his future career is adversely affected. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs should, therefore, take appropriate action to transfer him from the jurisdiction of the 3 rd respondent
- Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Thiruvananthapuram Zone, Cochin to the jurisdiction of the 5 th respondent - Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hyderabad, as and when a vacancy arises there, without forcing the applicant to take any legal remedies.
7. The applicant submits that he has given a representation to the 2 nd respondent in this connection asking for withdrawal of the letter dated 09.05.2019 at Annexure A-4 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs and for re-allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh based on his merit in the CGLE - 2011 Examination. A copy of two representations submitted by the applicant in this regard have been produced at Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-10. Since no reply was received, the applicant once again submitted an application under the RTI Act. In reply he got a copy of a letter dated 15.10.2020 which he has produced at Annexure A-12 as the impugned order. The letter dated 15.10.2020 which is addressed to the Chief Commissioner (CGST), Kochi by the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs has dealt with the issues raised by the applicant and his representations for re-allocation of his state to Andhra Pradesh in the cadre of Inspector selected through CGLE - 2011.
-7-
8. The said letter indicates that the matter had been examined thoroughly. As the vacancies for the year 2011 were already exhausted it was decided that the additional candidates would be accommodated against the vacancy for the year 2018. In respect of the applicant it has been stated as follows in paragraph 2 of the letter :
"2. ..........Regarding Shri.Sanjeev Kumar, it is submitted that there were no vacancies available in the zone allocated by SSC ie., Andhra Pradesh for the year 2018. In response to this, Board vide its letter dated 19.11.2018 forwarded the vacancy position of Inspector (CGST) in CBIC for the year 2018 and requested SSC to re-allocate 05 candidates (including Shri.Sanjeev Kumar) in other Zones from the vacancies of 2018."
The letter then goes on to state that consequently the SSC vide its letter dated 27.02.2019 has stated that the allocation of candidates is now being done by the concerned User Department. Therefore, it was requested to adjust these 05 candidates (including Shri.Sanjeev Kumar) of CGLE 2011 against the available vacancies of the year 2018 in any other Zone. The letter then states that after obtaining the total marks secured by the candidates, Allocation of Zones to the candidate strictly on merit-cum- preference subject to the availability of vacancies in a particular zone in a particular category was initiated. By using the direct recruitment quota vacancies for the post of Inspector (CGST, PO & Examiner) for the year 2018, allocation was done as per the options/preferences of the candidates (available in the dossiers) subject to the availability of vacancies. It is then indicated that taking into consideration the facts of the matter the zone allocation published on CBIC's website vide Board's letter dated -8- 09.05.2019 is final and no changes whatsoever shall be made. It is also indicated that Shri.Sanjeev Kumar may be informed that his request may not be agreed upon and is regretted.
9. The applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of his request as indicated vide the Annexure A-12 letter. He has sought the quashing of the letter as part of his relief. He submits that in the order pertaining to the case filed by him before the C.A.T., Allahabad Bench in O.A.No.1426/2014, where the said Bench had pronounced orders on 05.10.2017 it had been clearly directed by the Tribunal that the respondents are to declare the results of the applicants and allocate them to the service purely on the basis of merit, if found successful in the examination. A copy of the said order has been produced at Annexure A-2. Although the SSC had obeyed the direction in Annexure A-2, the 2nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs had not followed it. It is submitted that once he was allotted to Andhra Pradesh as per Annexure A-3 by the SSC, the 2 nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs does not have any authority to change it. The reallocation to Thiruvananthapuram Zone (Kerala State) adversely affects his career prospects because the seniority of Inspector of Central Excise is zone wise. Further, he had secured more marks than the lowest marks in Andhra Pradesh Zone for OBC candidates. It is submitted that an OBC candidate who has secured less marks than the applicant has been allotted to Andhra Pradesh, who will now steal a march over the applicant in future. The reason for this is that the number of posts of Superintendents, which is the next promotion post of Inspector, are more in -9- the Andhra Pradesh Zone than in Thiruvananthapuram Zone. As such, career prospects for the Inspectors of Central Excise is much better in Andhra Pradesh and that cannot be denied. Further, it is submitted that being from Bihar originally, allocation to Andhra Pradesh would be convenient for the applicant to reach his native place than from Kerala.
10. The Respondent Nos.1-5 have filed a reply statement in which they have sought to explain the circumstances in which the applicant was allotted to Thiruvananthapuram Zone instead of Andhra Pradesh. They have submitted that there has been no mistake committed by them in this regard. It is submitted by them that the SSC had published an advertisement for filling up of various posts through the CGLE 2011. This consisted of Tier I and Tier II examinations/tests, followed by interviews/skill test. It is submitted that the Commission (SSC) had undertaken a post examination analysis for CGLE 2011, and on the basis of such analysis and scrutiny incontrovertible and reliable evidence had emerged that the applicant had resorted to unfair means in the examination in association with other candidates who also appeared for the same. Hence, a show cause notice was issued to him as to why his candidature should not be cancelled due to his indulgence in unfair means. Meanwhile some other candidates had approached the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the same matter in O.A.No.930/2014 filed by Sudesh Kumari. The Principal Bench had allowed the O.A vide order dated 30.07.2014. The Commission challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.07.2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.9055/2014, which was -10- dismissed vide judgment dated 19.12.2014. Thereafter, the Commission filed S.L.P.No.2836-2838/2017 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 19.07.2017. The Review Petition filed by the SSC was also dismissed.
11. It is submitted that after this above developments, the SSC took steps to declare the results of all those candidates who had been left out. In the case of the applicant herein the result was revised. The Commission (SSC) then declared him nominated for the post of Inspector Central Excise in CBEC in Andhra Pradesh with Rank No.SL/1/2366 vide its letter produced at Annexure R-2. This letter dated 12.09.2018 was sent to the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) by the Commission (7th respondent) for undertaking further appointment formalities as per procedure. The respondents (Department of Revenue/CBIT&C) submit that as the vacancies for the year 2011 were already exhausted it was decided that the additional candidates would be accommodated against the vacancies for the year 2018. A copy of the note sheet of the file of the CBEC in which the issue was dealt with has been produced at Annexure R-3. The note therein states that five candidates out of eight candidates could not be adjusted as there was no vacancies available in those categories in the Zones of Goa, Daman & Diu, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh for the year 2018. It was requested for reallocating the candidates of those categories in other zones from the vacancies of CGLE 2018. The approval of the competent authority was obtained on the proposal in the file.
-11-
12. Regarding the applicant it is submitted that there was no vacancy available in the zone allocated by the SSC ie., Andhra Pradesh for the year 2018 is evident by Annexure R-4 letter of the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs containing the vacancy position in Hyderabad Zone. The Annexure R-4 letter added to the CBEC shows zero vacancy for Inspector, CGST in the OBC category for Hyderabad Zone for CGLE 2018. The Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs vide its letter dated 19.11.2018 produced at Annexure R-5 then wrote back to the SSC requesting to reallocate the said five candidates as there were no vacancies available in their Categories in the zones of Goa, Daman & Diu, Odisha and Andhra Pradesh for the year 2018 where these 5 candidates were allocated by the SSC. It was requested to reallocate the said 5 candidates in other zones from the vacancies of CGLE 2018. The SSC, 6 th respondent, vide Annexure R-6 dated 27.02.2019 in reply clarified to the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs that the Commission had stopped allocating candidates State-wise/Zone-wise since 05.08.2013. Hence allocation of candidates State-wise/Zone-wise are now being done by the concerned User Department. It was also indicated in this letter of the SSC that the allocation of the five candidates of CGLE 2011 was done in various Zones as per the then extant provisions in order of their merit-cum-preference. It was then requested by the SSC that these five candidates of CGLE 2011 may therefore be adjusted against the available vacancies of the year 2018 in any other Zone.
-12-
13. The letter produced at Annexure R-6 dated 27.02.2019 of the SSC is significant as in other words from this letter it appears that the SSC gave a green signal to the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs to there allocation of candidates for the year 2018 "to any other zone". It is submitted by the respondents 4-5 that after this letter, taking into consideration the total marks secured by the candidates, they undertook the initiation of allocation of zones to the candidates strictly on merit-cum- preference subject to the availability of vacancies in a particular zone in a particular category. The general preference shown by the candidates including the applicant, as produced at Annexure R-7 as well as the recommendations of the Allocation Committee produced at Annexure R-8, were taken into account. The applicant was then allocated to the post of Inspector in the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. The zone allocation was also published in the CBIC's website on 09.05.2019. It is indicated therein that this allocation was final and no changes whatsoever would be made. A copy of the letter dated 09.05.2019 issued in this connection by the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Cochin Zone and to other Chief Commissioners indicating that the applicant has been allotted to Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram CGST Zone has been produced at Annexure R-9. The submission of the respondents in essence is that the steps that they had taken in this regard are totally based on the allocation scheme in operation which is based on the principle of merit-cum-preference and that there is no other consideration involved.
-13-
14. Learned counsel for the applicant during oral submissions tried to however draw a distinction in this case. He submitted that the Annexure A-2 order issued by the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal had specifically directed the respondents to allocate the applicant herein along with others 'purely on the basis of merit'. Since the applicant had got 408.75 marks and the last candidate in the Andhra Pradesh zone in the OBC category had got 407.75 marks in the allocation made in 2011 vacancies, he was entitled to be allotted to Andhra Pradesh. Even if there may be no vacancy of 2011 in 2018, the 2nd respondent - Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs should have directed the 5th respondent - Principal Chief Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Hyderabad to have adjusted him against any category vacancy in Andhra Pradesh in the post of Inspector of Central Excise. This could have later been regularised against future vacancies in the OBC category. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the delay in the appointment after CGLE 2011 cannot be held against the applicant. He cannot therefore be denied justice as a result. The delay in the appointment of the applicant has had a direct effect on him because career prospectus in the Andhra Pradesh Zone are much better than the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. This is the main reason for his prayer for transfer to Andhra Pradesh.
15. It is submitted that the seniority of a direct recruit is decided on the basis of the merit position in the examination. The applicant, who had got higher marks, should have been given an appointment in Andhra Pradesh in comparison to those who have got less marks but got appointment there -14- purely due to the actions of the respondents. These appointees will have better career prospects as a result. The issue is also covered by decisions of various Benches of this Tribunal. O.A.No.3172/2012, O.A.No.69/2015, O.A.No.3001/2017 and O.A.No.341/2022 relating to similar issues had been allowed by the Principal Bench. In the order dated 04.10.2021 in O.A.No.3001/2017 at paragraph 12(iii) it has been indicated that : "If it becomes necessary to create supernumerary post to accommodate the applicant, the respondents shall do the same within such time of six weeks. In case the applicant is eventually appointed, he shall be entitled for consequential seniority depending upon his merit in the said selection process and he shall also be entitled for fixation of pay on notional basis with reference to his immediate junior. However, the applicant shall not be entitled for back wages or arrears on fixation of his pay." Similarly in order dated 07.02.2023 in O.A.No.341/2022 at paragraph 13 it was directed that : "As a consequence of these directions, the applicant shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including, but not restricted to, promotion and refixation of salary and other allowances. However, they shall have no claim to the arrears of such financial benefits as the award of the same shall be on notional basis. These directions shall be complied within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." The applicant has also produced a copy of the orders in O.A.No.3797/2014 dated 18.04.2022 of the Principal Bench which, in fact, relates to the matter of allotment to a particular zone. It is stated therein that : "It was for the SSC and the user department to coordinate among themselves so that no discrepancy or inconsistency arose, as has happened -15- in that particular case. If there was any miscommunication or gaps in the sharing of the information in this regard, surely the applicants cannot be made to suffer for the same." That O.A was allowed with direction to allot the applicants to the region to which they had sought and to give them consequential benefits.
16. We have considered the above contentions and at the outset we note that some other Inspectors of Central Excise working in the Thiruvananthapuram Zone in Kerala, who were candidates in the next CGLE 2012 have also approached this Tribunal aggrieved by their late recruitment in 2018. However their purpose in the O.A filed by them was to ensure that their seniority, as a result of the merit ranking in the said examination, is protected in relation to other candidates who had been recruited as a result of the CGLE 2012. Two cases recently disposed of by this Tribunal are Kusum vs. Union of India & Ors., (O.A.No.310/2021) and Priyanka vs. Union of India & Ors., (O.A.No.504/2022). The issue agitated by the applicants therein was to fix their seniority in the cadre of Preventive Officer (Inspector), Customs, in accordance with the merit position in CGLE 2012 and by placing them above their batch mates in the examination who are lower in merit, by reckoning vacancy year as 2012-13. The prayer therein was to grant all consequential benefits including further promotion with effect from the date of promotion of juniors, notional fixation of pay etc. In the matter of Kusum (supra) this Tribunal had found as follows :
-16-
"19. In view of these consideration and in respectful agreement with the orders passed by the Principal Bench in O.A 341/2022 dated 07.02.2023, we direct the competent authority among the respondents to pass orders giving the appropriate seniority to the applicant with effect from the date her batchmates who joined the appropriate cadre under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs have been given in terms of the merit position in the CGLE 2012 examination. This will however be done only on a notional basis. The applicant would also be entitled to the consequential benefits which could include promotion and re-fixation of her pay and other allowances. However, she will not have any claim to any arrears of such financial benefits, as the award of the same is on a notional basis. We also direct that the action to be taken by the respondents will be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. The O.A is allowed as indicated above. An M.A No.180/957/2022 filed by the respondents to delete the 1 st and 2nd respondents from the array of parties is not allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."
17. We note however that there is a difference in the matter under consideration here as the applicant herein is not asking for seniority in relation to other batchmates recruited as a result of CGLE 2011 within the Thiruvananthapuram Zone, but is mainly asking for reallocation to Andhra Pradesh Zone with other consequential benefits, including seniority, as if he had joined the Andhra Pradesh Zone along with his batchmates with a direction to the respondents to transfer him to the Andhra Pradesh Zone. Hence, these are two clearly different aspects. The first aspect to be considered, herein, is whether he is entitled to be allotted to the Andhra Pradesh Zone and subsequently the issue in relation to the fixation of his seniority. In respect of the non allocation to the Andhra Pradesh Zone and being allocated to the Thiruvananthapuram -17- Zone, from the details that have been provided, the respondents cannot be faulted for the action taken by them in allocating him to the Thiruvananthapuram Zone. The fact of the matter is that the vacancies which may have been existed consequent to CGLE 2011 in the Andhra Pradesh Zone under the OBC category were no longer available when the matter in relation to the consideration of appointment of the applicant was finally cleared in 2018. This is quite evident from the letter produced by the respondents at Annexure R-4, which shows that in the Hyderabad Zone under the CGLE 2018, no vacancies under the OBC category for Inspector, CGST were available, whereas, there were two vacancies under the OBC category in the Kochi (Thiruvananthapuram Zone) for that year. It is not possible in such circumstances for the respondent authorities to re-visit preferences made in 2011 which, by the time the matter was finally cleared in 2018, had worked themselves out or had disappeared due to the recruitments made in subsequent years. The vacancies shown by the SSC at Annexure A-3 cannot be taken to exist right up to 2018. Further, the contention made by the applicant that it was the SSC who had correctly allocated him, but the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs had not done so, is defeated by the letter of the SSC produced at Annexure R-6, wherein, the SSC has given a full go ahead and freedom to the Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs to adjust the five candidates including the applicant in CGLE 2011 against the available vacancies of 2018 in any other Zone. Thus, clearly due to all these considerations, no mistake has been committed by the respondents in the matter of allocation of the applicant to the -18- Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram Zone. The applicant has blamed the delay in his joining on the respondents; for that purpose we can consider granting him other reliefs. However, he has no legal right to be posted in a state only of his choice. The respondents have clearly brought out the details of their considerations in posting him to the Kerala Zone, which are acceptable. Hence, this part of the relief to post him to Andhra Pradesh cannot be allowed.
18. We now come to the seniority issue. The case of applicant having been allocated to the Cochin/Thiruvananthapuram zone can be considered on the issue of whether a right for seniority in his case in comparison to his fellow candidates of CGLE 2011. In this connection, following our findings in the matter of Kusum (supra) in relation to the seniority of that applicant who had appeared in CGLE 2012, applicant herein could have the right to be considered for fixation of seniority on the same basis. Hence, following the findings in O.A.180/310/2021 in the case of Kusum (supra) as well as in O.A.No.180/504/2022 in the case of Priyanka (supra), the competent authority among the respondents may pass orders giving the appropriate seniority to the applicant with effect from the date his batchmates who joined the appropriate cadre under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs have been fixed. The applicant would then be entitled to the consequential benefits which could include notional promotion and re- fixation of his pay and other allowances. However, he will not have any claim to any arrears of such financial benefits, as the award of the same is -19- on a notional basis. We also direct that the action to be taken by the respondents will be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
19. The O.A is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 1st day of August 2023)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-20-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00081/2021
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Notice in Employment News dated 19.03.2011 for holding the Combined Graduate Level Examination (CGLE) 2011 issued by the 6th respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the Common Order dated 05.10.2017 in O.A.Nos.1483/2014 and 1426/2014.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the Letter No.215/SSC-CR/2011 NOM (CGL) dated 12.09.2018 issued by the 7th respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the Letter F.No.A 12034/SSC/05/2012 Ad.III(B) dated 09.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent.
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Order C.No.II/3/8/2019 Estt., dated 02.07.2019 issued by the 4th respondent.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the Order No.76/2019 dated 24.07.2019 was issued by the 4th respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the Option Form and the details of allotment of candidates for the post of Inspector of Central Excise.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the Final Status of SSCOM/R/2019/51264 dated 01.04.2019 supplied by the 6th respondent.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the representation dated 18.10.2019.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the representation dated 19.08.2020.
11. Annexure A-11- A copy of the Letter F.No.A-60/R/IV/18/2020 Ad.III(B) dated 25.01.2021.
12. Annexure A-12- A copy of the Letter F.No.A-12034/SSC/05/2012- Ad.III(B) dated 15.10.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent.
13. Annexure R-1 - A copy of the Letter dated 02.11.2018 issued by the respondents.
14. Annexure R-2 - A copy of the Letter dated 12.09.2018.
15. Annexure R-3 - A copy of the Approval of the competent authority.
16. Annexure R-4 - A copy of the Vacancy Position in Hyderabad for the year 2018.
17. Annexure R-5 - A copy of the Letter dated 19.11.2018. -21-
18. Annexure R-6 - A copy of the Letter dated 27.02.2019.
19. Annexure R-7 - A copy of the Preferences exercised by the applicant.
20. Annexure R-8 - A copy of the Recommendation of the Allocation Committee.
21. Annexure R-9 - A copy of the Letter dated 09.05.2019.
_______________________________