Case Note & Summary
The litigation concerned the determination of seniority and promotion of Group B officers in the Central Excise and Customs departments to the Group A entry grade post of Assistant Collector/Senior Superintendent in the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service. The petitioner was the All India Federation of Central Excise and other officers, while the respondent was the Union of India. Prior to the coming into force of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules, 1987, promotions to Group A posts were based on the respective cadre strength of feeder categories. This manner of filling vacancies was challenged in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.4532-33/78, where promotions of 174 Superintendents of Central Excise and 10 Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) based on a 1978 DPC panel were disputed. The main contention in those writ petitions was that all eligible officers belonging to three Group B feeder categories should be arranged in one common consideration list based on continued length of service in Group B. While those petitions were pending, the Court directed framing of statutory rules, and once the 1987 Rules were framed, the petitions were disposed of on 23.9.1987 with an observation that promotions in dispute would be looked into with reference to the Rules. Subsequently, W.P.(C) No.306 of 1988 challenged Rule 18 of the 1987 Rules, alleging that the common seniority list and regular length of service criterion might deprive officers of their due share. W.P.(C) No.1200/83 challenged the common seniority list prepared after contempt proceedings, and W.P.(C) No.1093/90 was filed by officers who felt their interests would be jeopardised if they did not move the court. The matters remained pending since 1988. On 8.6.1989, the Government of India forwarded a communication from the Central Board of Revenue containing proposals to resolve the disputes, which were considered equitable and fair. However, even after seven years, no consensus emerged among the parties. The Supreme Court examined the proposal and found it fair, just and equitable. The proposal divided the entry grade Group A posts into Central Excise and Customs posts on a functional basis, arriving at a ratio of 65:36, which was rounded to 67:33, i.e., a workable ratio of 2:1 between Central Excise and Customs. The Customs share was further apportioned between Customs Appraisers and Customs (Preventive) Superintendents in the ratio of their respective sanctioned strength, which also came to 2:1. The Court accepted this proposal and directed that promotee quota vacancies in the Group A grade of Senior Superintendent/Assistant Collector be filled from Central Excise and Customs Group B officers in the ratio of 2:1, with the Customs share apportioned as stated. The Court also affirmed that the seniority of Group B feeder categories for eligibility for promotion to Group A would be determined on the basis of regular length of service in the respective Group B category, subject to the condition that inter se seniority in each feeder category would be maintained. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Gaya Baksh Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (JT (1996) 5 SC 118), which had resolved one aspect of the dispute between directly recruited Appraisers and promotees. The Court noted that the prolonged litigation was caused by mutual suspicion and lack of statutory rules, and that the proposal now accepted provided a just resolution. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of by accepting the Central Board of Revenue proposal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority and Promotion - Common Seniority List and Regular Length of Service - Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules, 1987, Rule 18 - Petitioners challenged Rule 18 contending that their cadre strength and time taken to reach Group B status may prevent due share if Rule 18(2) applied. The Court examined the Central Board of Revenue proposal and found it fair, just and equitable. Held that the common seniority list based on regular length of service subject to inter se seniority is accepted and disputes resolved accordingly. (Paras 1-8) B) Service Law - Promotion Quota - Apportionment of Vacancies Between Central Excise and Customs - Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules, 1987, Rule 18 - The entry grade posts in Group A were divided into Central Excise and Customs posts on functional basis, yielding a ratio of 65:36, rounded to 67:33 i.e., 2:1. The Customs share was further apportioned between Customs Appraisers and Customs (Preventive) Superintendents in 2:1 ratio based on sanctioned strength. The Court accepted this proposal as equitable. Held that promotee quota vacancies in Group A grade to be filled in 2:1 ratio between Central Excise and Customs Group B officers. (Paras 1-8) C) Service Law - Precedent - Resolution of Feeder Cadre Disputes - Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules, 1987 - Earlier in Gaya Baksh Yadav vs. Union of India and Others, (JT (1996) 5 SC 118), the Supreme Court had given quietus to one aspect of the dispute between directly recruited Appraisers and promotees. The present judgment notes that in absence of statutory rules, claims and counter-claims caused prolonged litigation and accepts the proposal to settle all issues. Held that the proposal is fair, just and equitable and accepted to resolve the long-standing seniority dispute among Group B feeder cadres. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 18 of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A Rules, 1987, providing for promotion to Grade VI on the basis of a common seniority list of three Group B feeder categories and regular length of service, is valid; and how the seniority and promotion quota of Group B officers from different feeder cadres to Group A entry grade should be determined.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court accepted the proposal of the Central Board of Revenue as fair, just and equitable. It held that promotee quota vacancies in Group A grade of Senior Superintendent/Assistant Collector should be filled from Central Excise and Customs Group B officers in the ratio of 2:1, with the Customs share further apportioned between Customs Appraisers and Customs (Preventive) Superintendents in the ratio of 2:1 based on their respective sanctioned strength. The Court directed that the seniority of Group B feeder categories for eligibility for promotion to Group A be determined on the basis of regular length of service in respective Group B category subject to maintenance of inter se seniority. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Seniority of Group B feeder categories for promotion to Group A determined on regular length of service in respective Group B category subject to maintenance of inter se seniority
- vacancies to be filled by promotion in common seniority list
- promotion on selection on merit basis
- Commission to be consulted for promotions to Grade VI
- proposal for filling promotee quota vacancies in Group A grade in ratio 2:1 between Central Excise and Customs Group B officers
- with Customs share apportioned between Customs Appraisers and Customs (Preventive) Superintendents in ratio 2:1
- Court accepted Central Board of Revenue proposal as fair
- just and equitable.
