Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
V L A Prasad vs The Secretary Ministry Of Finance ... on 27 February, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
Original Application No. 180/00500/2018
Tuesday, this the 27th day of February, 2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Member (A)
1. V.L.A. Prasad, aged 42 years,
S/o Shri V. Srirama Moorthy,
Inspector (Examiner), Custom House,
Willingdon Island, Kochi - 682 009.
Residing at Qrs.No.109, Customs Quarters,
South End, Willingdon Island, Kochi - 682 003.
2. Mateen Khan, aged 35 years,
S/o Abdul Raoof Khan,
Inspector (Examiner), Custom House,
Willingdon Island, Kochi - 682 009.
Residing at Qrs.No.20, Customs Quarters,
South End, Willingdon Island, Kochi - 682 003.
3. Ajay P. Sivan, aged 33 years,
S/o Sivan Asari, Inspector (Examiner),
Custom House, Willingdon Island,
Kochi - 682 009. Permanent address :
Sivasakthi, Nedumon, Kovalam P O,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695527.
4. Ashutosh Shukla, aged 35 years,
S/o Shri Dharm Dutt Shukla,
Inspector (Examiner), Custom House,
Willingdon Island, Kochi - 682 009.
2
Permanent address : 174/2, Bhulai Ka Pura,
Teliarganj, Allahabad- 211004,
Uttar Pradesh. ..... Applicants
(By Advocates : Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy & Mrs. Kala T. Gopi)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Central Board of Indirect Tax & Customs,
Represented by the Chairman, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001.
3. The Chief Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai - 600001.
4. The Commissioner of Customs,
Customs House, North End, Willingdon Island,
Kochi- 682009.
5. The Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, Port Area,
Vishakapatnam - 530035, Andhra Pradesh
6. The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi - 110 001. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N. Anilkumar, SPC)
3
This Original Application having been heard on 07.02.2024, the
Tribunal on 27.02.2024 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -
The applicants herein are working as Inspectors (Examiners) in the Customs House, Cochin. They were recruited as Inspectors (Examiners) by promotion from the lower cadre. The next promotion in the hierarchy is the post of Appraisers, which is a Group-B gazetted post. Annexure A2 is the Department of Revenue, (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988, of Customs Appraisers. The cadre of Examiners is maintained Commissionerate wise i.e. Examiners of Cochin, Chennai and Vishakhapatnam, constitute three different cadres/seniority list. The vacancies in respective cadre of Examiners are filled up by Direct Recruitment and Promotion in the ratio of 2:1. For the purpose of promotion, only those in the feeder cadre in the respective Commissionerate are considered. The 50% posts in the cadre of Appraisers are filled by Direct Recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion, which is further split up with 75% of that 50%, to be filled by promotion of Examiners, 20% by promotion of Preventive Officers and 4 5% by promotion of Office Superintendents. The cadre controlling authority of the Customs Appraisers of the above three Commissionerates, namely Chennai, Kochi and Vishakhapatnam, is the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. For filling up vacancies of Customs Appraisers, Examiners of three different seniority units of Chennai, Kochi and Vishakhapatnam are considered. According to the applicants, Commissionerate is bound to maintain an integrated seniority list with bench mark "good". Respondents prepared the integrated seniority list of all Examiners of three different seniority units and also the eligibility list on the basis of integrated seniority list. Annexure A3 is the draft seniority list dated 4.6.2018 of Examiners under the Cochin Commissionerate. The applicants' name figure in Annexure A3, which has not yet been finalized. Thereafter, Annexure A1 eligibility list was published, without publishing an integrated list. The applicants have a grievance that in the integrated list, they are much below several other persons. Applicants are placed much below those who have entered the grade after the applicants, both by direct recruitment and by promotion. Consequently, they submitted Annexures A4 and A5 representations. They were not responded, it is lamented.
5
2. According to the applicants, in the absence of any guideline issued by the DoP&T or by the Ministry concerned regarding the method of preparation of an integrated common seniority list of persons belonging to different seniority units under the three Commissionerates, the respondents are bound to follow the settled legal principle that integrated lists shall be based on the length of service in the grade. In Annexure A1, the respondents have not maintained either the principle of length of service in the grade or the principle of Quota-Rota Rule. Hence, Annexure A1 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and hence it is liable to be set aside. It was stated that though objections were called against Annexure A1, in the event of noticing any discrepancies, and though the applicants had responded by submitting Annexures A4, A5 and A6 representations, they have not been responded. Similarly, no integrated seniority list preceded Annexure A1.
3. According to the applicants, the principle of assignment of inter-se position in Annexure A1 is not supported by any valid order of the DoP&T or the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. In the absence of any Guidelines or Rules for determining the seniority, settled legal position is that it should be based on length of service in the grade 6 which has not been followed. Since, Annexure A1 is not based on the length of service in the grade, though based on an integrated seniority list of Examiners of three different seniority lists, it is liable to be quashed. Hence, Annexure A1 was challenged in the Original Application. The reliefs sought in the OA are as follows:
"(i) Declare that Annexure A1 eligibility list is not consistent with Articles 14 and 16 and that the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and quash the same;
(ii) Direct the respondents to prepare the eligibility list for promotion to the cadre of Appraisers under the control of the 3rd respondent, based on the length of service in the cadre of Examiners and direct further to consider the applicants and others for promotion as Appraisers on that basis."
4. Respondents filed a detailed reply statement traversing the various contentions raised in the Original Application. It was contended that the vacancies in the grade of Inspector (Examiner) was to be filled up in the ratio of 2:1 by direct recruitment and promotion respectively. Every year, the direct recruitment vacancies in the grade of Inspector (Examiner) of all Customs Houses are intimated to Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) with applicable Reservation Rules, who in turn intimate the consolidated vacancy position to Staff Selection Commission. Likewise, vacancies in respect of promotee Inspector (Examiner) are filled up by the respective Customs House by conducting DPC. The 7 candidates for the post of direct recruitment Inspector (Examiner) are recruited by Staff Selection Commission by conducting various stages of examination and an all India ranking of direct recruit Inspector (Examiners) was drawn by the Staff Selection Commission. The list of selected candidates as per vacancies intimated with applicable reservations are forwarded to the CBIC, who in turn redistribute the candidates to various Custom Houses based on the preferential place of posting and posting options exercised by candidates and subject to availability of vacancies in the respective Customs Houses.
5. According to the respondents, the seniority of Direct Recruit Inspectors (Examiners) was determined as per the rank obtained in the Staff Selection Commission examination, irrespective of the date of joining in the cadre. Likewise, the seniority of the promotee Inspector (Examiners) was based on their position in the select panel approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the respective Custom House.
6. It was further stated that as per DoP&T OM No. 20011/1/88- Estt.(D) dated 12.12.1988 and DoP&T OM No. 20019/2/83-Estt.(D) dated 10.9.1985, the inter-se seniority among the Direct Recruit Inspector 8 (Examiners) and Promotee Inspector (Examiners) was determined by the individual Custom House by way of rotation of direct recruits and promotees in the ratio of 2:1 respectively. Accordingly, each Custom House draws a panel of inter-se seniority list in respect of direct recruit candidates who join their Custom House and promotees who get promoted for the respective vacancy years irrespective of the date of joining. As an example, it was stated that a direct recruit Inspector (Examiner) of 2014 Staff Selection Commission examination who would have joined in 2016 in a Custom House was rotated among 2014 promotee Inspector (Examiners) of that Custom House, who would have joined in 2014 itself.
7. It was further stated that the seniority lists in the grade of Inspector (Examiners) was issued by circular No. 2018 vide F. No. S14/121/2017- Estt., F. No. S45/54/2005 Estt. Cus. Part II dated 2.2.2018 and F. No. S1/01/2014 dated 14.2.2018 of Chennai, Cochin and Vishakhapatnam Custom Houses respectively.
8. As per the Department of Revenue, (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988, vacancies in the post of Appraiser are to be 9 filled by direct recruitment and promotion, in the ratio of 1:1. The Recruitment Rule was produced as Annexure R1.
9. It was stated that the cadre control for filling up the post of Appraisers rested with three cadre control authorities of Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkatta Custom Houses. The vacancies in the grade of Appraiser of Chennai cadre control was with Chennai Custom House. Accordingly, a combined eligibility list of Chennai Zone was prepared by combining the Inspector (Examiners) seniority lists of Chennai, Vishakhapatnam and Cochin Custom Houses. It was further stated that the seniority of Inspector (Examiners) of Chennai, Visakhapatnam and Cochin Custom Houses who were to be considered for promotion to the grade of Appraiser was based on the combined eligibility list issued vide circular No. 25 of 2018 dated March, 2018 produced as Annexure R2.
10. According to the respondents the combined eligibility list was prepared on the following principles:
"a) As the direct recruit Inspector (Examiners) of all the 3 Custom House viz. Chennai, Vizag and Cochin are selected through a common examination held by SSC, the seniority of direct recruit Inspector (Examiners) among these Custom House are arranged as per the All India ranking provided by SSC.10
b) The seniority position of the promote Inspector (Examiners) in respect of these three custom House are placed with reference to their vacancy year of promotion to the grade of Inspector (Examiner) and date of joining in the grade of Inspector (Examiner) without disturbing their seniority among direct recruit and promotees of their respective Custom House seniority list."
11. According to the respondents, the combined eligibility list was prepared by merging seniority lists of different Custom Houses. The quota-rota rule and the length of service was followed in the individual Custom House seniority lists, as per the DoP&T instructions. While preparing combined eligibility list, if quota-rota rule and length of service is followed, it may result in anomaly of junior person in the individual zone seniority list becoming senior in the combined eligibility list. Though, the applicants contented that the respondents are bound to prepare an integrated seniority list of all the Inspector (Examiners) of the three different seniority list, they never explained the method of preparing it, nor quoted any instructions on the same. Hence, it was contended that the claim of the applicants that the eligibility list was to be prepared based on the integrated seniority list was baseless. On the above premise, respondents sought for dismissal of the OA.
12. Heard both sides and examined the records.
11
13. The basic facts are not in dispute. The main grievance of the applicants is that the common eligibility list for promotion issued by the cadre controlling authority at Chennai was not in accordance with law. There is no dispute that the integrated seniority list was constituted from the three Commissionerates of Cochin, Chennai and Vishakhapatnam. The grievance of the applicants was that the basis of arranging the Examiners of three Commissionerates was not disclosed. As a corollary, they contended that no definite guideline of DoP&T or the Ministry indicating the method of preparation of integrated common seniority list of persons belonging to different seniority units was in force. In the absence of such guidelines, the arranging of Examiners arbitrarily by the Chennai unit was violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Another limb of the contention was that in the absence of such guidelines, the settled law was that the seniority/integrated eligibility list should be based on the length of service of the Examiners in the cadre. To substantiate it, the learned counsel for the applicants heavily relied on the decision of three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaya Baksh Yadav v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 4 SCC 23] and also another decision of the two judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court 12 in Chennai Customs Appraising Officers Association v. Union of India and Others [(2008) 7 SCC 278].
14. Per contra, the respondents contended that combined eligibility list of Examiners was prepared by combining individual seniority lists of three Custom Houses, based on the guidelines of the DoP&T O.M No.22011/7/86 - Estt(D) dated 3.7.1986 which was produced along with a Memo dated 12.9.2023. The specific contention was that the combined eligibility list was prepared by merging the seniority list of different Custom Houses. The Quota-Rota Rule and the length of service were followed in the individual Custom House seniority list as per the DoP&T instructions. It was contended that while preparing the combined eligibility list, Quota-Rota Rule and length of service cannot be followed, since it would result in anomaly of junior person in the individual zone seniority list becoming senior in the combined eligibility list. It was also contended that the applicants' contention that the respondents are bound to prepare an integrity seniority list of all Inspector Examiners of three different seniority lists was neither explained by the applicants and a better method of preparing it was not noted in any of the instructions issued till now.
13
15. According to the respondents, the combined eligibility list is prepared based on two specific principles as contained in clauses 2.1 and 2.2 of DoP&T O.M No.22011/7/86.
"a) Since the direct recruit Inspector Examiners of all the three Custom Houses were selected through a common examination held by the SSB, the seniority of direct recruit Inspectors Examiners among the Custom Houses are arranged as per the all India ranking provided by the SSB.
b) The seniority position of promotee Inspector Examiners in respect of the three Custom Houses are placed with reference to their vacancy year of promotion to the grade of Inspector (Examiner) and the date of joining in the grade of Inspector (Examiner) without disturbing their seniority among the direct recruit and promotees of their respective House seniority list."
16. On the basis of this, it was contended that the list was prepared strictly in accordance with the above principle and the directions contained in DOP&T Circular O.M No.22011/7/86 Estt(D) dated 3.7.1986. The relevant clauses in above DoP&T O.M are clauses 2.1 and 2.2, which reads as follows:
"2.1 The relative seniority of all direct recruits is determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for such appointment on the recommendations of the U.P.S.C or other selecting authority, persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection being senior to those appointed as a result of a subsequent selection.14
2.2 Where promotions are made on the basis of selection by a D.P.C., the seniority of such promotees shall be in the order in which they are recommended for such promotion by the Committee. Where promotions are made on the basis of seniority, subject to the rejection of the unfit, the seniority of the persons considered fit for promotion at the same time shall be the same as the relative seniority in the lower grade from which they are promoted"
It was further contended by the learned Senior Panel Counsel that while integrating all the three lists, the interse seniority between the direct recruitees and promotees in each of the Custom House was ensured.
17. The applicants have no case that the above principles have been violated. They have also no case that inter se seniority of them vis-a-vis the direct recruits of the Kochi Commissionerate is disturbed. There is also no specific averment in the Original Application that any of the applicant is placed junior to his junior in the cadre. Applicants have also not pointed out any such specific instance. They have also no case that clauses 2.1 and 2.2. of O.M 22011/7/86 have been violated.
18. To substantiate the case of the applicants that the length of service in the cadre is liable to be reckoned, the learned counsel placed heavy reliance on the decision in Gaya Baksh Yadav's case (Supra). The genesis of the litigation which ultimately resulted in Gaya Baksh's case is clear 15 from the judgment itself. It seems that in 1940, the Government of India issued a General Circular for determination of relative seniority of candidates appointed by direct recruitment and by promotion. In that Circular, specific directions were provided regarding reckoning of seniority. On December 12, 1959, the Government issued another Circular containing, amongst others, some general principles for determining the seniority of various categories of persons in Central Services. By virtue of both the Circulars, seniority was to be fixed by working out rotational system depending on the respective quota reserved for direct recruits and promotees. In accordance with the 1959 Circular, the Collectorate of Bombay Customs House prepared a seniority list. Certain promotee Appraisers in the Customs department challenged the seniority list of 1962, by moving the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was contended that the rotational system had resulted in discriminatory treatment against them with the consequence that promotees of much longer service in the cadre of Appraisers were placed in the seniority list below the direct recruits with much shorter service, which offended Article 16(1) of the Constitution. This led to the decision of five judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme 16 Court in Mervyn Continho and Others v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [(1963) SCR 600].
19. The contention of Union of India in that case was that, in a service where recruitment was partly by promotion and partly by direct recruitment, the system of fixing seniority by rotation has been adopted and this pattern was being followed in several services under the Union. It was also stated there was nothing discriminatory in that system and no denial of opportunity was involved in following the rotational system for determining the seniority in such circumstances. The Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with the above contention of the Union of India and the theme of 1959 Circular. The Supreme Court opined that where recruitment to cadre was from two sources, namely, direct recruits and promotees, and the rotational system was in force, seniority was to be fixed as provided by alternatively fixing a promotee and direct recruitee in the seniority list. The Court did not find any violation of equality principles and of opportunity enshrined in Article 16(1) of the Constitution by adoption of the rotational system. The specific contention that the system resulted in anomaly was rejected and it was viewed that such situation had developed since direct recruitment had not kept pace 17 with the quota fixed. Though the Supreme Court had noticed that there were few anomalies consequent to the insufficient recruitment of direct recruits in the past, it was held that it cannot be held as a reason for striking down the seniority list prepared, which was strictly in accordance with the rotational system based on fixed quotas.
20. It is pertinent to note that Mervyn Continho's case arose at a stage where there was no Statutory Rules governing the subject, till 1961, when the Customs Appraisers Service Class II Recruitment Rules 1961 was introduced. Clause 3 of Rule 4 of the said Rules provided that the percentage of posts to be filled by direct recruitment by competitive examination, or by selection otherwise than by competitive examination, shall not be less than 50% of the total cadre of Appraisers and the remaining posts may be filled by any other method mentioned in Rule 3 (emphasis supplied). Thus, regarding the percentage of direct recruits, it was specifically provided that it shall not be less than 50%, thereby indicating that it could be higher than 50%. Clearly this indicated that by virtue of 1961 Rules, no specific quota was prescribed for direct recruits, and resultantly Quota Rule was broken.
18
21. Thereafter, there were few litigations challenging Circulars issued by the department from time to time. Ultimately, Circular dated 22.05.1986 was issued by the Government deciding that the promotees of all three cadres/regions of Custom Houses were to be placed together on the basis of their continued length of service and the direct recruits correspondingly, on the basis of their interse ranking, assigned by the UPSC and then, an all India list to be prepared by rotating the officers in the two lists in the ratio of 1:1. Though said Circular of 22.5.1986 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India contained the principles regarding promotion of Appraisers of Customs to the India Customs and Central Excise Service Group A, the All India combined list of Appraisers so prepared was challenged before Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. The Bench by order dated 28.5.1987, quashed the Circular and set aside promotions made to the post. Union of India was directed to prepare the list afresh of an all India combined list of Appraisers on the basis of continuous officiation of the incumbent in the post of Appraisers.
22. The above order of the CAT ultimately came up to be considered by the Supreme Court in Gaya Baksh Yadav. Evaluating the entire 19 situation in the back drop of Rule in Mervyn Continho, it was held that the Mervyn Continho applied subsequent to 15.8.1947 till "The Customs Appraisers Service Class II Recruitment Rules 1961", came into force. It was held that in accordance therewith till 1961, there was a quota system operating rotationally. The anomalies found by the promottees in working the quota system were ordered to be derogated by the Supreme Court. It was held that Mervyn Continho's case did not apply to the situation post 1961 Rules. It was noticed that by 1961 Rules, no upper limit was fixed regarding the number of percentage of direct recruits to be appointed. Consequently, there was no Quota in relation to the direct recruits. It was held that in the absence of specific quota being fixed in the 1961 Rules, the Quota-Rota Rule stood discarded. When there was no Quota Rule, the rotational system could not be put into effect. It was held that Mervyn Continho's case could have applied to the post 1961 period, had the Quota and Rotational Rule been preserved. Since prior to 1961 Rules, the Quota and Rota principles were in vogue, the Cour,t in the light of the Government orders then existing, gave its approval. Essentially Gaya Baksh's case dealt with post 1961 Rules scenario. Mervyn Continho applied to pre-1961 position and not thereafter. It was also held that 20 Mervyn Continho's case will thus hold the field to regulate interse seniority between direct recruits and promotee Appraisers on the basis of Quota and Rota ratio, irrespective of the continuous length of service of promotee. However, it stopped with effect from the date when Rule 1961 came into force. On that premise, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing seniority to be prepared on the basis of continuous officiation.
23. In Chennai Customs Appraisers Officers Association (supra) the interpretation of 1961 Rules, and Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988, in the context of the decision in Mervyn Continho's case and in Gaya Baksh's case came up for consideration before Supreme Court. In the above cases, challenge was against two seniority lists of Appraisers dated 16.12.2004 and 28.2.2005. Supreme Court noted that the terminologies used in 1961 Rules and 1988 Rules were different. Broadly speaking, 1961 Rules speak of "cadre", whereas 1988 Rules speak of "vacancies". It was observed that in 1961 Rules separate quotas for different categories of employees have not been fixed. If there was no quota, indisputably, the principles of Rota will have no application, it was held. According to the Supreme Court, the decision 21 in Gaya Baksh's case which mandated that seniority had to be counted from the date of continuous officiation was issued keeping in view the fact situations obtaining at that stage. Thus, in Chennai Customs case, the earlier view in Gaya Baksh's case was reiterated.
24. An overall evaluation of Mervyn Continho, Gaya Baksh and Chennai Customs Appraisers Officers Association lead to the specific conclusion that Gaya Baksh's case can apply only when the post 1961 Rule situation exists. Mervyn Continho will hold the field when specific quotas are fixed. In the case at hand, the Rule governing the ratio between the direct recruits and promotees is Annexure A-2 notification F. No.A.12018/1/86-Id.II-A, Government of India called Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988. It provided that the method of recruitment for the post of Customs Appraiser was to be filled by 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Evidently specific quota has been fixed for direct recruits and for the promotees. Consequently, Mervyn Continho's case shall hold the field. On the other hand Gaya Baksh's case cannot have any application to the facts of this case.
22
25. Having appreciated the entire facts in this perspective, it is clear that Gaya Baksh's case heavily relied on by the applicant cannot salvage the situation existing in the present case. In the light of the specific quota fixed by Annexure A-2 Rule, Quota-Rota Rule has to be followed. As held by the Supreme Court in Mervyn Continho's case, mere existence of anomaly is not of any consequence, if the procedures for fixing the panel has been followed. The applicants could not establish that the conditions prescribed in O.M No. 22011/7/86-Estt.(D) dated 3.7.1986 have been violated in any manner.
26. In the absence of any challenge to O.M No.22011/7/86-Estt.(D), dated 3.7.1986 and Annexure A2 notification, they have to govern the field. Consequently, no relief can be granted as sought by the applicants. The Original Application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 27th day of February, 2024)
(K.V. EAPEN) (JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
23
Original Application No. 180/000500/2018
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- A true copy of circular bearing No.25 of 2018 dated nil. March, 2018, issued from the office of the third respondent Annexure A2- A true copy of 'The Department of Revenue' (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988 Annexure A3- A true copy of Establishment Circular no.17/2018 dated 4.6.2018 issued from the office of the fourth respondent Commissioner of Customs, Kochi Annexure A4- A true copy of representation dated 23.3.2018 submitted by the 1st applicant Annexure A5- A true copy of representation dated 3.4.2018, addressed to the 3rd respondent, along with a covering letter dated 4.4.2018 addressed to the 4th respondent Annexure A6- A true copy of communication dated 7.6.2018, addressed to the 3rd respondent Annexure R1- True copy of the Department of Revenue (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988 Annexure R2- True copy of the combined Eligibility List issued vide Circular No.25 of 2018 dated nil. March 2018 Annexure R3- True copy of the seniority list of Examiners Cochin Custom House Annexure A7- True copy of OM bearing No.35034/7/97/Estt(D) dated 8.2.2002, issued by the Department of Personnel & Training. 24 Annexure A8- True copy of relevant pages of the booklet DoP&T's O.M No.20011/1/2008-Estt.(D) dated 11th November 2010 'Instructions and Guidelines on Seniority' Annexure A9- True copy of Circular baring No.67 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai Annexure A10- True copy of Circular bearing No.20/2007 dated 20/25.07.2007 issued by the respondents Annexure A11- True copy of Circular bearing No.49/2014 dated 29.09.2014 issued by the respondents Annexure A12- True copy of Circular bearing No.369/2018 dated 27th December 2018, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Annexure A13- A true copy of order bearing no.231/2019 dated 30.12.2019, issued from the office of the third respondent Annexure A14- A true copy of Circular No.38/2018 dated 17.09.2018 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Annexure A15- A true copy of Circular No.41/2018 dated 26.10.2018 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Annexure A16- A true copy of Circular No.58/2018 dated 29.01.2019 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Annexure A17- A true copy of the Communication bearing F.No.C41/03/202-Estt.(Pt.) dated 12.03.2021 25 Enclosure A: A true copy of combined all India seniority list of Appraisers circulated under F.No.23011/1/2004 Ad 11A dated 28.4.2004.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-