Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vikram Niranjan vs Expenditure on 30 April, 2024
1
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No.1864/2023
M.A No.2211/2023
and
M.A No.316/2024
Reserved on : 09.04.2024
Pronounced on : 30.04.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
1. Vikram Niranjan, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 27 years,
S/o. Indrapal Niranjan
R/o. 352, School Block Sakarpur
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 667
2. Jitendra Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 25 years,
S/o. Mahpal Singh
R/o. WZ-148 Ravi Nagar New Delhi-110 018
SEN. No. 620
3. Narayan, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Kanhaya Lal
R/o. VPO Bhandoli Palwal Haryana-121 107
SEN. No. 584
4. Kailash Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Shatrudhan Prasad Modi
R/o. 262 D Park Road
Pandav Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 592.
5. Sachin Yadav, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 28 years,
S/o. Moti Ram
R/o. B-195 Vikash Nagar Uttam Nagar
New Delhi-110 059
SEN. No. 625
2
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
6. Narendra Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 34 years,
S/o. Netra Pal Singh
R/o. H. No. 96 Street No. 3 Block A Brijpuri
Main Wazirabad Road Delhi - 110 094
SEN. No. 923
7. Vikash Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 28 years,
S/o. Sri Prasad Sah
R/o. H. No. 101
Chander Vihar Mandawali New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 686
8. Yashpal, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 26 years,
S/o. Veerpal
R/o. S-224 Gali No. 15 Nala Road
Pandav Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 662
9. Ranjit Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 26 years,
S/o. Mathura Singh
R/o. Wazirabad Gali No. 6
North Delhi-110 084
SEN. No. 689
10.Gagan Verma, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 27 years,
S/o. Mundrika Verma
R/o. F, 531st floor gali no. 2
West Vinod Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 638
11.Arvind Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Jagdish Prasad
R/o. H. No. 111 Indira Complex Nahar Par
Old Faridabad, Haryana-121002
SEN. No. 614
3
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
12.Mo Gufran, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Akhtar
R/o. 573/12 Saini Colony Panipat
Haryana-132 103. SEN. No. 687.
13.Devvrat Singh, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 31 years,
S/o. Jai Prakash
R/o. Nirman Vihar New Delhi - 110 092
SEN. No. 931
14.Shashi Bhushan Pal, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Bhola Pandit
R/o. 4D/55 Old Rajinder Nagar Delhi-110 060
SEN. No. 673.
15.Raj Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 27 years,
S/o. Rambriksh Mahto
R/o. Village Rohua Post Office Kohbarva
Distt. Sitamarhi Bihar-843 330
SEN. No. 699
16.Sher Singh Bairwa, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Rajju Bairwa
R/o. Bhaypur Mohanpur Post Raghuvanshi Ten
Distt. Karuli Rajasthan-322 241
SEN. No. 588
17.Ashish Garg, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Ajay Garg
R/o. 141-B Pocket-M Sarita Vihar
New Delhi-110 076
SEN. No. 613
18.Om Prakash Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 26 years,
S/o. Anil Singh
R/o. Shanti Niwas near Tyagi Dairy Shakarpur
New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 678
4
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
19.Banwari Lal Meena, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 26 years,
S/o. Sumer Meena
R/o. Dundipura Post Gothra Tehsil Sapotra
Distt. Karuli Rajasthan-322 218
SEN. No. 746
20.Rahul Choudhary, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 26 years,
S/o. Ashok Choudhary
R/o. 435, School Block Shakarpur
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 730
21.Neetu Kumari, MTS, Group 'C',
Aged about 28 years,
D/o. Brijnandan Paswan
R/o. Village Govindpur Post. Modanganj
Distt. Jahanabad Bihar-804432
SEN. No. 1028
22.Aakash Shakla, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 32 years,
S/o. Omprakash
R/o. 16/427-E Bapa Nagar Padam Singh Road
Karol Bagh New Delhi-110 005
SEN. No. 934
23.Abhinav Bajpai, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Parshuram Kumar Bajpai
R/o. F-136, Mangal Bazaar road
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092
SEN. No. 751
24.Shivam Kumar, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Satish Kumar Singh
R/o. Pushp Vihar Sector-03 New Delhi-110 017
SEN. No. 594
5
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
25.Abhishek, Notice Server, Group 'C',
Aged about 30 years,
S/o. Amarnath Sharma
R/o. 323 A block Gopal Nagar, Najafgarh
New Delhi-110 043
SEN. No. 756
....Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Union of India
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
2. The Chairman,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi - 110 001
3. The Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax,
Delhi Zone, Ministry of Finance,
CR Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110 002
4. The Pr. Director General of Income Tax (HRD),
CBDT, Ministry of Finance,
2ND Floor, JLN Stadium,
New Delhi-110 003
5. Ramkesh Meena,
Serving as Tax Assistant,O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
6. Sachin Amar Kholwad,
Serving as Tax Assistant,O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
6
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
7. Sandeep,
Serving as Tax Assistant,O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
8. Rakesh Kumar Sonkar,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
9. Sonu Kumar,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
10.Nitish Kumar Rawat,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
11.Amit Lakra,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
12.Rishu Raj,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
13.Kripal Singh,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
14.Manoj Kumar Mishra,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
15.Atul Bhatt,
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi
16.Aniket Kumar
Serving as Tax Assistant,
O/o. Pr. CCIT, Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Sakshi Rai with Mr. Sanjeev Yadav)
7
O.A. No.1864/2023
Item No. 75
ORDER
Hon'ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
Brief facts of the case, as narrated in this OA and argued by learned counsel for the applicants, are as under:-
1.1 The applicants were initially appointed as MTS in the year 2016 after facing due selection process conducted by Staff Selection Commission. Tax Assistant is the next post after MTS in hierarchy.
1.2 On 18.12.2015, in supersession of earlier Recruitment Rules, 2003 [hereinafter referred to as RRs of 2003], the respondents had notified the new Recruitment Rules [hereinafter referred to as RRs of 2015] for promotion to the next higher post of Tax Assistant. As per these RRs, 25% of the posts of Tax Assistants were to be filled on promotion from the feeder cadre of MTSs, Process Server, Notice Server, LDC etc. and 75% of the posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment. However, vide letter dated 13.04.2005, the respondents issued instructions based on un-amended RRs of 2003 as per which for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant, an Eligibility List is 8 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 required to be prepared from amongst the MTSs, Process Server, Notice Server, LDC etc. Only those employees, who successfully clear the departmental typing test, will be included in the Eligibility List for consideration by the DPC for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant. The aforesaid instructions are against the extant RRs of 2015. 1.3 However, the respondents issued clarification vide letter dated 28.06.2019 (Annex A-6) clarifying that instructions dated 13.04.2005 had become redundant due to advent of the amended RRs and, hence, all action for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant will be taken as per the RRs of 2015. The relevant para of the letter dated 28.06.2019 reads as under:-
".....3. I am further directed to say that in preparing eligibility list for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant, the Board's letter dated 13.04.2005 comes into play only when the conditions given in the existing Recruitment Rules are fulfilled. As the above mentioned feeder posts have different pay levels at present and as the existing Recruitment Rules contain specific eligibility conditions for promotion to the grade of Tax Assistant the para "a common eligibility list in chronological order with reference to passing of the computer skill examination shall be prepared for consideration of the DPC. Inter-se seniority of the candidates recommended for promotion as Tax Assistants shall be fixed in order of the select list so prepared by the DPC" in the Board's letter F. No. A- 12018/1/2005-Ad.VII dated 13.04.2005, has become redundant and, hence, superseded. Henceforth, all action for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant will be taken as per Recruitment Rules.9 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75
1.4 Since the RRs 2003 had been amended in 2015, the aforesaid instructions dated 13.04.005 were rightly declared redundant by the respondents vide letter dated 28.06.2019. However, in the same letter, in response to a query no.(ii), it was stated as under:-
Queries Reply
(ii) Whether all the candidates, List of eligible candidates for
who have earlier led the Computer promotion to the post of TA has Skill Test are to be treated as to be prepared in the following eligible for promotion and seniors to manner: those, who have qualified computer skill test on later date irrespective (I) Prepare a list of those who of their seniority. fulfill all the following conditions given in RR:
(a) 5 years regular service in the concerned region in the Grade (MTS/NS/LDC/Record Keeper/Sr. Gest. Op.) including service rendered in the erstwhile Group 'D'.
b) Having passed Matriculation examination or equivalent.
(c) Having qualified the prescribed Department Examination for data entry skill for 5000 key depressions per hour.
(II) After that, arrange the list as per date of passing the data entry skill test (amongst those whose names appear in the list at step I).
1.5 On one hand, vide instructions dated 28.06.2019, the earlier instructions dated 13.04.2005 (wherein the eligibility list was being prepared as per date of passing the computer skill test) were made redundant, on the other 10 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 hand, in the same letter, in answer to query no.(ii), a decision was taken to prepare a list of the eligible candidates as per the date of passing of the Data Entry Skill Test. Therefore, the confusion with respect to preparing the said eligibility list remained in the minds of the respondents.
1.6 As per the extant RRs, for the post of Tax Assistant MTS and other Group 'D' staff from different cadres, are required to pass the Computer Skill Test/Data Entry Test with a speed of 5000 key depressions per hour. Since the applicants have been appointed on their merit position achieved by them while facing the SSC recruitment examination, the so-called Computer Skill Test/Data Entry Test, which is merely qualifying in nature, could not have become the determining factor for their placement in the eligibility list, for next promotion of Tax Assistant. Therefore, this act on the part of the respondents based on instructions dated 28.06.2019 is against the extant RRs, which have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the Hon'ble President of India, and the said clarification cannot be made applicable for the DPC without the approval of the competent authority. 11 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 1.7 Aggrieved, the applicants had raised objections with respect to the eligibility list and having no response from the respondents filed OA Nos.1499/2022 and 2511/2022, which had been disposed of by the Tribunal vide orders dated 01.06.2022 and 06.01.2023 respectively directing the respondents to decide representation of the applicants. 1.8 Instead of deciding the representation of the applicants, the respondents based on the eligibility list prepared as per un-amended RRs, issued promotion orders on 14.09.2022, 15.09.2022 and 02.03.2023 promoting juniors of the applicants to the post of Tax Assistant, which are impugned in the present OA. 1.9 It is pertinent to mention here that inter-se seniority in the MTS cadre is determined based on the merit position obtained by candidates during their selection through open examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission. The applicants had secured more marks and were higher in merit than their junior MTS. However, in a qualifying/eligibility Typing/Data Entry Test (an eligibility requirement for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant), which is not a competitive test, the said juniors might have passed the said examination prior to the 12 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 applicants, but on that basis only, the juniors belonging to the same or subsequent batch as that of the applicants, cannot be permitted to have stolen a march over and above the applicants under the garb of eligibility list when the original inter-se seniority always remained intact. Thus, the eligibility list dated 28.12.2021 prepared by the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal. But the respondents did not accede to the request of the applicants to consider and promote them as Tax Assistant on the basis of the inter-se seniority.
1.10 Aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"a. To quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 (A-1) and letter dated 27.06.2023 (A- 1A) and direct the respondents to consider the claim of Applicants for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant by holding review DPC and promote the Applicants to the post of Tax Assistant with all consequential benefits.
b. To quash and set aside the promotion order dated 14.09.2022, 15.09.2022 & 02.03.2023 to the extent the Applicants have not been promoted to the post of Tax Assistant alongwith their juniors and direct the respondents to consider the Applicants for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant strictly as per the seniority in the cadre of MTS and grant them promotion of their juniors with all consequential benefits.
c. To quash and set aside the para 4 of letter dated 31.05.2023 to the extent it has been provided that any action already taken as per redundant 13 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 instructions contained in letter dated 13.04.2005, 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 & 28.06.2019 shall not be altered and direct the respondents to hold review DPC of the original DPC dated 14.09.2022 and 01.03.2023 by ignoring the aforesaid letters dated 13.04.2005, 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 & 28.06.2019 and strictly as per the Recruitment Rules and the DoP&T OMs referred in the OA.
d. to allow the OA with cost.
e. pass any further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Per contra, the official respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting that the eligibility list of the candidates for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant was prepared in terms of Board's letter dated 13.04.2005 in compliance of the Directorate of Income Tax (HRD)'s letter dated 23.05.2016, as per which it was clarified that while preparing eligibility list for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant even after coming into force new RRs of 2015, instructions dated 13.04.2005 were to be followed. As such, eligibility lists dated 28.12.2021 and 02.03.2023 were prepared with reference to the date/year of passing of the Computer Skill Test.
2.1 With respect to the clarification letter from DIT (HRD) dated 28.06.2019, the respondents have admitted that Para 3 of the said letter clearly stipulates that instructions dated 13.04.2005 have been superseded 14 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 being redundant and henceforth, all action qua promotion to the post of Tax Assistant will be taken as per the RRs of 2015. However, the respondents on the basis of answer to specific query no. (ii) of the said letter dated 28.06.2019, have tried to justify their action and argued that the applicants are not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed by them in this OA as their name did not exist in the eligibility list prepared by them.
3. We have carefully perused the pleadings, documents available on record and heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicants drew attention to a latest order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Board, whereby the following decision had been taken:-
"Dated:31.05.2023 To The PV. CCITI CCAX Delhi The Pe CCIT (CCA), Mumbai ect.
Sir Madam, Subject: Clarification regarding the Interpretation of the Term 'Seniority" in the feeder cadre (NSMTS/LDC) while considering for promotion to TA-reg.
Ref: Letter F No. 4. CCIT/GUJ/ABD/1HQ(Pers.) Clari, MTS to TA/23-24 dated: 01.05.2023 of Pr.
CCIT (CCA), Gujarat.15
O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 Kindly refer to the subject cited above.
2. In this context, it has been observed that there is some lack of clarity in some field offices in regions across the country regarding the methodology to be adopted while conducting DPCs for promotion to the cadre of Tax Assistant (Ref: Letter of the Pr. CCIT(CCA), Gujarat dated:
01.05.2023 as referred above). Accordingly, clarification in the matter is being made for the convenience of all as below, based on the extant Recruitment Rules for the cadre of Tax Assistant:-
"Senior Junior clause as mentioned in Column 11 of the Schedule to Recruitment Rules for the past of Tax Assistant included in the RRS notified vide GSR No.990(E) on 18.12.2015 provides as under:
...3. Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years whichever is less and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service..."
3. As per Article 309 of the Constitution of India, Recruitment Rules for the post of Tax Assistant notified vide GSR No.990(E) on 18.12.2015 are statutory in nature. Accordingly, I am directed to convey that DPC for promotion to the post of Tax Assistant may be conducted only by following the extant Recruitment Rules for the post of Tax Assistant.
4. The earlier clarifications issued by the Board/HRD in the matter such as letters of even number dated 13.04.2005 (issued by Ad VII, CBDT based on the then RRs dated 02.09.2003 of Tax Assistant cadre), 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 and 28.06.2019 stand withdraw with immediate effect. It is also clarified that any action already taken as per earlier instructions of the Board/HRD in this regard shall not be altered so that settled seniority lists are not disturbed. This issues with the approval of the Chairman, CBDT". 16 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 4.1 From a perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is clear that the respondents have withdrawn their earlier instructions dated 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 and 28.06.2019. Although, vide letter dated 28.06.2019 itself, the earlier instructions had already been declared redundant, however, due to the inconsistent reply to query no.(ii), some confusion remained. Ultimately, vide letter 31.05.2023, that confusion has also been cleared now. 4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents argued that even after withdrawal of instructions dated 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 and 28.06.2019 vide letter dated 31.05.2023, the relief claimed by applicants could not be granted to them as letter dated 31.05.2023 clearly provided that 'any action already taken as per earlier instructions of the Board/HRD in this regard shall not be altered so that settled seniority list is not disturbed'. For the sake of clarity, relevant para of the aforesaid letter is reproduced hereunder:-
"...4. The earlier clarifications issued by the Board/HRD in the matter such as letters of even number dated 13.04.2005 (issued by Ad VII, CBDT based on the then RRs dated 02.09.2003 of Tax Assistant cadre), 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 and 28.06.2019 stand withdraw with immediate effect. It is also clarified that any action already taken as per earlier instructions of the Board/HRD in 17 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 this regard shall not be altered so that settled seniority lists are not disturbed.' 4.3 The issue for our consideration revolves around the applicability of RRs of 2015 and/or the earlier instructions issued by the Board as per the un-amended RRs of 2003. Somewhat similar situation, as in the present case, was before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. L. Sachdev & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1981 SCR(1) 971], wherein the following had been held:-
"Apart from this consideration, we are unable to understand how the Director General could issue any directive which is inconsistent with the Recruitment Rules of 1969 framed by the President in the exercise of his powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. Those rules do not provide for the kind of classification which is made by the Director General by his letters to the Heads of respective Circles of the new organization. It may be recalled that the Recruitment Rules only provide for a classification on the basis of the length of service in the new organization. Any directive which goes beyond it and superimposes a new criterion on the Rules will be bad as lacking in jurisdiction. No one can issue a direction which, in substance and effect, amounts to an amendment of the Rules made by the President under Article 309. That is elementary. We are unable to accept the learned Attorney General's submission that the directive of the Director General is aimed at further and better implementation of the Recruitment Rules. Clearly, it introduces an amendment to the Rules by prescribing one more test for determining whether U.D.Cs. drawn from the Audit Offices are eligible for promotion to the Selection grade/Head Clerks Cadre."
4.4 In case of State of Maharashtra vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar [1989 SCC (SUPP) 1 393] also, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
18O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75
"Executive instructions cannot amend or supersede the statutory rules or add something therein, nor the orders be issued in contravention of the statutory rules for the reason that an administrative instruction is not a statutory Rule nor does it have any force of law; while statutory rules have full force of law provided the same are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act."
4.5 In Secretary State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors., [AIR 2006 SC 1806], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"5. The power of a State as an employer is more limited than that of a private employer inasmuch as it is subjected to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily (See Basu's Shorter Constitution of India). Article 309 of the Constitution gives the Government the power to frame rules for the purpose of laying down the conditions of service and recruitment of persons to be appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or any of the States. That Article contemplates the drawing up of a procedure and rules to regulate the recruitment and regulate the service conditions of appointees appointed to public posts. It is well acknowledged that because of this, the entire process of recruitment for services is controlled by detailed procedure which specify the necessary qualifications, the mode of appointment etc. If rules have been made under Article 309 of the Constitution, then the Government can make appointments only in accordance with the rules." 4.6 As per case laws discussed above, in any conflict between instructions and RRs promulgated under Article 309, the scale would weigh in favour of the RRs. 4.7 An identical issue has recently been considered by Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Vinod Kumar Kanaujiya & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors [OA No. 715/2019 19 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 decided on 28th March, 2024] and the said OA, after discussing all the case laws referred to above, has been decided in favour of the applicants therein. 4.8 The only ground raised by learned counsel for the respondents is that as per letter dated 31.05.2023 providing 'action already taken as per earlier instructions of the Board/HRD in this regard shall not be altered so that settled seniority list is not disturbed', the applicants are not entitled to any relief prayed for in the instant OA. 4.9 In this regard, it is seen that seniority between the applicants and the private respondents has not yet been settled as the lis between both the parties is still pending and they are aware that wind could blow either way. Noting the complexity of the issue, the Tribunal vide order dated 24.08.2023 by way of an ad interim measure, recorded that "Meanwhile, any promotions made on the basis of letters dated 13.04.2005, 23.05.2016, 03/04.10.2018 & 28.06.2019 shall be subject to the outcome of this OA." Therefore, in our considered opinion, the seniority between both the parties, i.e., the applicants and the private respondents in the 20 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 present case cannot be treated to be settled one for want of decision in the pending litigation between them. Accordingly, the contention of the respondents in this regard has no force and the same stands rejected.
5. In the conspectus of the facts and circumstances brought out above, we dispose of the present OA with the following directions:-
(i) Eligibility Lists dated 28.12.2021 and 02.03.2023 prepared by the respondents as per the redundant instructions are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to re-issue the Eligibility List based on the inter-se seniority position of eligible candidates including the applicants at the time of their initial appointment and not on the basis of the date of passing the eligibility qualifying Data Entry Skill/Typing Test;
(iii) The respondents are further directed to hold a review DPC of the earlier DPC which led to issuance of promotion orders dated 14.09.2022, 15.09.2022 21 O.A. No.1864/2023 Item No. 75 and 02.03.2023 and to consider grant of promotion to the applicants as Tax Assistant as per their inter-
se seniority/re-drawn eligibility list, as directed above; and
(iv) In case, the applicants are found otherwise eligible and suitable for the post in question, promote them from the date when their immediate junior(s) had been promoted to the post of Tax Assistant and assign them seniority accordingly. The applicants will be entitled to all consequential benefits, e.g., seniority, fixation of pay on notional basis etc., except back wages.
6. The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of.
7. No order as to costs.
(Harvinder Kaur Oberoi) (Anand Mathur)
Member (J) Member (A)
/Ahuja/Mbt/