SAURABH KUMAR vs REVENUE on 13 October 2026

1. THE UN FINANC NEW DE

2. THE PR DEPART 1stFLOO

3. THE CO REVENU PATEL M

4. THE AD DEPART BIRCHA

5. THE J DEPART BUNGLO

For Appl For Resp

1. The in followin

CENTRAL ADMINISTRA PATNA BENCH, O.A. No. 050/00

P

C O R A M

LE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KU ON’BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH C

KUMAR SON OF LATE M R, OFFICE OF THE INCOME T (HAJIPUR), SUBHAI HOUSE OF PURANDARPUR, PS-JAK HAR).

Versu

NION OF INDIA THROUGH TH CE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENU ELHI-110001. RINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSION TMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNM R, BIRCHAND PATEL MARG, PA OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA UE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MARG, PATNA-800001. DDITIONAL COMMISSIONER O TMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNM AND PATEL MARG, PATNA-8000 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF TMENT OF REVENUE, 3RD FLOO OW CHOWRAHA, PATNA-80000

licant:-

Mr. M.P. pondents:-

Mr. G.K. O R D Per: Mr. Kumar Rajesh C nstant OA has been filed by ng relief:-

ATIVE TRIBUNAL , PATNA

Reserved on: -22.09.2026 Pronounced on:- 12.10.2026 M UMAR JOHARI, MEMBER [J] CHANDRA, MEMBER [A] MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA, TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 1(3), E, DIGHI KALAN, HAJIPUR, KKAHNPUR, DISTRICT-PATNA-

………Applicant us HE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF UE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NER OF INCOME TAX, (B&J), MENT OF INDIA, CR BUILDING, ATNA-800001. AX (ADMN), DEPARTMENT OF A, C.R BUILDING, BIRCHAND OF INCOME TAX (HQ)/ADMN., MENT OF INDIA, CR BUILDING,

001. INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, OR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK

01. ……..Respondents . Dixit, ld. Advocate Agarwal, ld. ASC E R Chandra, Member (A): y the applicant seeking the

, , , - F , , , F D , , , K e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench

2. The bri and del 2.1 2.2

i. To hold and declare the 16.06.2021 as contained in applicant under RTI Act, without competence and als dated 27.11.2020 issued by t in Annexure A/2.

ii. To direct the respondents to below all the officials in ers 26.03.2002 in terms of t authority i.e. respondent No Annexure A/2.

iii. To direct the respondents considering the promotion of TA to OS & OS to ITI hencefo

iv. To direct the respondents to in favour of applicant inclu implementation of order d Annexure-A/2 approved by authority.

v. Any other relief or reliefs inc may be allowed in favour of

vi. To quash and set aside contained in Annexure A/12 (This paragraph has be dated 02.07.2024 passed

ief facts of the case, as per th lineated as follows: 1 The applicant was initially Upper Division Clerk (UD Commission (Graduate Level 6000/- after qualifying the co November 1996 and finally Department, Mumbai Charge/ 2 After completion of one year Rs. 4000-6000/- at Mumbai C request before Chief Commis CCIT for Inter Charge Tra Mumbai Charge/Region to Bi 1999.

decision of Review DPC dated n Annexure A/1 conveyed to the as null, void, ab-initio wrong, so contrary to the order/approval the respondent No.2 as contained o re-fix the seniority of applicant stwhile Cadre of UDC/TAs as on the order passed by competent o.2 on 27.11.2020 contained as in s to convene Review DPC for of applicant from TA to Sr. TA, Sr. orth. o grant all consequential benefits uding promotions on account of dated 27.11.2020 as contained in respondent No.2 being competent cluding the cost of the proceeding f the Applicant. the order dated 27.10.2023 as 2 issued for the respondent No. 2. een added in view of order d in MA No. 74 of 2024). he instant O.A., are discussed appointed on 29.05.1998 as DC) through Staff Selection

l) in Pay Scale of Rs. 4000- ompetitive examination held in y posted in the Income Tax /Region. service as UDC in Pay Scale of Charge, applicant has submitted sioner of Income Tax in short nsfer herein after ICT from ihar Charge/Region in the year d e , l d t n t n r . s f n t g s . r d s n - n x f d t m r Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

3 In the year 2000, CCIT Mum request and forwarded his app Charge) for acceptance of his I No. MCHQ/Pers. /153-70/200 4 In the meantime, department Instruction dated 04.06.2001 re-designated as TA in own g was also re-designated as TA vide order No. Addl. CIT(HQ TA/G.B./13-2/2001 dated 10. applicant is mentioned at se Division Clerk & Others (Not Group D employees had been (Matric Level) after passing 5000 key depression per hour UDC i.e. 4000-100-6000. 5 Subsequently, CCIT/PCCIT, P ICT and issued an absorption the same pay scale of Rs.4000 against Direct Recruitment restructuring, the seniority o restructuring in higher status have to be maintained as en-b (Group-D) having lower p restructuring. 6 In the meanwhile, in comp absorption as TA issued on applicant joined in Bihar Cha ΤΑ. After joining as TA respondents have issued first 17/25.07.2002 wherein the placed at serial No.228 below merged cadre which is highly u against which protest was subm 7 Thereafter, respondents seniority list of TA as on 3

mbai Charge has considered his plication to CCIT, Patna (Bihar ICT in grade of UDC vide letter

00. t was re-structured vide CBDT's and the post of UDC had been rade and accordingly applicant A from erstwhile cadre of UDC Q)Pers./Re-designated/UDC to 10.2001 in which name of the erial no. 194. Further, Lower tice Servers, Record Keepers & promoted in the new TA cadre computer skill examination of r in parallel to the pay scale of Patna considered his request of order as TA on 25.02.2002 in 0-6000 in Bihar Charge/Region quota, hence as per the f UDCs, TAs existing prior to s and also in higher pay scale block senior to the LDC & Peon pay and status before the pliance to the said order of 25.02.2002 by CCIT, Patna, arge/Region on 26.03.2002 as cadre in Bihar Region, the t draft seniority list of TA on name of applicant has been all Group-D employees of pre- unjust, illegal and unreasonable mitted by applicant. have issued revised draft 30.06.2003 in which name s r r s n t C o e r & e f f f n n e o e n e f , s e n n - e t e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.8 2.9

of applicant was placed a all UDCs of pre-merged ca meantime, another seniority 14.08.2003 wherein the name serial No.204 below all LDCs having lower status and low seniority list dated 14.08.200 unreasonable against which applicant. In this regard it i applicant under Bihar Regio existing UDCs/TAs in Pay S above the LDC & Peon (GR-D) 8 In-spite of his protest agai 14.08.2003, respondents have rejected his request and in the wrong seniority list of TA, appl of Senior Tax Assistant here in as the applicant has alrea Examination in the year 2002 to the post of Inspector in the has already passed Inspector It is submitted that if the s cadre had been correct UDC/TAs of pre-merged ca got promotion to the post with UDCs/TAs of pre-m that since respondents have Circular F No. A-22020/76/8 this regard and as such, app recurring loss of seniority a there upon only due to fault, n 9 Ultimately, applicant met w protecting his right and the sa applicant to submit fresh repre accordingly applicant has subm on 21.10.2020 to the PCCIT

at serial No.104 just below adre which is correct. In the list of TA was published on of applicant has been placed at s of pre-merged cadre who are wer pay scale also, hence the 03 is highly unjust, illegal and h protest was submitted by is submitted that seniority of on has to be fixed below all Scale of Rs.4000-6000/- but in the merged cadre of TA. inst said seniority list dated neither corrected the same nor e meanwhile on the basis of said licant was promoted to the post n after STA in the year 2008-09 ady passed Ministerial Staff 2 and further he was promoted e year 2013-14 as the applicant Examination in the year 2008. seniority of applicant in TA ted and fixed below all adre, applicant would have of STA and Inspector along erged cadre. It is submitted violated clause-2 (b) of CBDT 89-Ad.VII dated 14.05.1990 in plicant has suffered with huge and consequential promotions egligence of the respondents. with PCCIT/CCIT, Patna for aid authority has instructed the esentation giving all details and mitted a detailed representation T/CCIT, Patna for placing his w e n t e e d y f l t d r d t f d t . A l e g d T n e s r e d n s Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1 2.1

position above LDCs/Group- cadre. (Annexure A-3) 10 Getting no order, applicant s (Annexure A-4) asking sup respect of consideration of 21.10.2020 and thereafter app 03.05.2021 (Annexure A-5) sheet and approval order o 27.11.2020 (Annexure A-2) the administration with appli said competent authority i given direction to re-fix an one other below all the cadre of UDC on the date Bihar region and further Review DPC for TA to STA hence in all fairness concerne were duty bound to imple 27.11.2020 approved by hig PCCIT/CCIT, Patna placing t Group-D of erstwhile cadre cadre. 11 After receipt of said order da Annexure A/2, applicant has s RTI on 30.06.2021 asking co minutes of review DPC in placement of his position belo above LDCs and Group-D of supplied quoting it to be sen from reply dated 28.07.2021 (A was advised to prefer 1st app preferred on 03.08.2021 (An was directed to supply the min dated 26.10.2021 (Annexure applicant through RTI letter.

-D employees of pre-merged sent application on 06.04.2021 pply of note sheet and file in his said representation dated plicant received one reply dated under RTI Act along with Note of PCCIT/CCIT, Patna dated whereby wrong committed by icant has been deprecated and i.e. PCCIT/CCIT, Patna has nd place the applicant and officials in the erstwhile e of joining of applicant in it was ordered to convene A, STA to OS and OS to ITI, ed authorities of Bihar Region ement the said order dated ghest authority of Region i.e. the applicant above LDCs and but below UDCs of erstwhile ated 27.11.2020 as contained in sent another application under opy of compliance report and respect of promotion due to ow UDCs of erstwhile cadre and erstwhile cadre but it was not nsitive information as evident Annexure A-6) and applicant peal. Thereafter, 1st appeal was nnexure A-7) in which CPIO nutes of Review DPC vide order e A-8) communicated to the d n d d e d y d s d e n e , n d . d e n r d o d t t t s O r e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1

12 Subsequently, applicant was Review DPC dated 16.06.2021 letter dated 25.11.2021 (Anne instead of complying the basi dated 27.11.2020 in respect o erstwhile UDCs and above ers Review Committee has cons which is not the job of DPC/R DPC/Review DPC has only recommend the promotion an and further the members of below the PCCIT/CCIT canno authority, hence the order of R without competence of Review settled law/rules on the subjec 13 Getting no compliance in 27.11.2020 approved by PCCI sent representation on 06 through proper channel which dated 08.07.2022 (Annexur order in compliance of order has been passed which is irrati 14 After waiting for few mon reminder on 02.01.2023 (An forwarded through letter date 11a) but neither any complian dated 27.11.2020 has been applicant has been disposed arbitrary, unjust, unconsti colorable exercise of power. 15 The issue of seniority is base and admittedly applicant being to the post of UDC while subm joined as TA in same pay scale placed below all erstwhile UD LDCs/Group-D in the newly m s conveyed with the minutes of (Annexure A-1) through RTI exure A-9) which shows that ic order of PCCIT/CCIT, Patna of placing the applicant below stwhile LDCs and Group-D, the sidered the issue of seniority Review DPC. It is submitted that limited role to consider and nd not to decide the seniority Review DPC who were much ot go beyond the order of said Review DPC dated 16.06.2021 is w DPC, bad in law and against ct. terms of said order dated IT/CCIT, Patna, applicant has .07.2022 (Annexure A-10) h was forwarded through letter e A-10a) but even though no issued by PCCIT/CCIT, Patna ional and malicious. ths, applicant has again sent nnexureA-11) which was also ed 05.01.2023 (Annexure A- nce order of PCCIT/CCIT, Patna issued nor representation of of till date which is punitive, itutional, per-se-illegal and ed on recurring cause of action g in higher status and pay scale mitting request for ICT and also e of UDC is legally entitled to be DCs/TAs but above all erstwhile merged cadre of TA but still the f I t a w e y t d y h d s t d s ) r o a t o - a f , d n e o e e e Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 2.1

3. Per con written 3.1

applicant is being harassed cogent reason and as such ac unfair, punitive, arbitrary, m respects bad in law. This als loss for no fault of the applican delay or latches on the part of case. 16 During pendency of the sa order dated 27.10.2023 (Ann Commissioner of IT (Hqrs/A communicated that the repres 02.01.2023 has been rejected is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, pu promissory estoppels and mal most respectfully submitted t has already applied his considering the representation of applicant on 27.11.2020 a then how successor of the sam review the order of his predece the eye of law otherwise it w paragraph i.e., paragraph 12 has been added in view passed in MA No. 74 of 20 application). ntra, the Respondents have n statements in which it was st 1 The applicant, Shri Saurabh Upper Division Clerk (UDC) i and subsequently sought an Bihar Charge. Before his abso Cadre Restructuring Plan of designated as a Tax Assistant itself. Upon his transfer, he wa Charge in the cadre of Tax Ass and humiliated without any ction of respondents, is highly mala fide, malicious and in all o causes recurring irreparable nt and further there is no willful f applicant in filing the present aid OA, applicant has received nexure A-12) issued by Dy. Admn), Patna whereby he has sentation dated 06.07.2022 and by the Respondent No.2 which unitive, against the principle of licious also. In this regard it is that once the respondent No.2 quasi-administrative mind n of applicant deciding in favor s contained in Annexure A/2, me rank holding same post, can essor which is never possible in will be endless process. (This no. 4.20 with Annexure A- w of order dated 02.07.2024 24 that was an amendment contested the case by filing tated that: Kumar, initially joined as an in the Mumbai Charge in 1998 Inter-Charge Transfer to the orption, pursuant to the CBDT f 2000-01, his post was re- by his parent Mumbai Charge as duly absorbed into the Bihar istant on 28.10.2002, strictly in y y l e l t d . s d h f s d r , n n s

- t g n e T - e r n Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 3.2

4. Ld. cou stated t 4.1 4.2

accordance with the terms a circular dated 14.05.1990 (An that an inter-charge transferee seniority list in the new cha seniority. 2 The applicant's belated claim decades, seeking seniority in completely misconceived, as th existence following the rest pursuant to administrative d Review DPC met on 16.06.20 the matter, concluding that t revise the settled seniority recommendation was prompt Authority on the same day, th finality. Therefore, the pr untenable, highly delayed, and costs. unsel for applicant has filed t that: 1 The applicant, initially appoin (UDC) on 29.05.1998 in th Mumbai, sought an Inter-Cha Region in 1999. His request w Mumbai, and he was absorbed equivalent pay scale of Rs. 4 Recruitment quota in the 26.03.2002. 2 Subsequent to the CBDT res erstwhile UDCs and TAs (h status) were required to be pl status erstwhile LDCs and Gr and conditions of the Board’s nnexure R-1), which mandates e is placed at the bottom of the arge and does not carry past m, made after more than two n the erstwhile UDC cadre is he UDC cadre was no longer in tructuring plan. Furthermore, directions, a duly constituted 021 and thoroughly considered there was no valid ground to list of Tax Assistants. This ly approved by the Competent hereby achieving administrative resent application is legally d deserves to be dismissed with the rejoinder in which it was nted as an Upper Division Clerk he Income Tax Department, rge Transfer (ICT) to the Bihar as duly recommended by CCIT, d as a Tax Assistant (TA) in the 4000-6000 against the Direct Bihar Region, joining on structuring on 04.06.2001, the olding higher pay scales and laced en-block senior to lower- roup-D employees who entered s s e t o s n , d d o s t e y h s k , r , e t n e d - d Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 4.3 4.4

the merged TA cadre afte However, the responden applicant below all Group the seniority list dated 14 recurring prejudice to his Senior Tax Assistant ( Inspector (ITI). 3 Upon a detailed representati competent authority—name Commissioner of Income applied its mind and administrative approval o PCCIT explicitly de administrative lapses and be placed below the erstw the erstwhile LDC/G consequential Review DPC 4 Although the Review DPC jurisdiction by attempting to r not the mandate of a DPC) clear administrative mandate during the pendency of th authority arbitrarily issued 27.10.2023 on the applicant's settled principle of service jur equivalent authority cannot overturn a binding administra er passing basic skill tests. nts arbitrarily placed the p-D and LDC employees in 4.08.2003, causing severe s legitimate promotions to (STA) and Income Tax ion filed by the applicant, the ly the Principal Chief Tax (PCCIT), Patna—duly d passed a categorical order dated 27.11.2020. The eprecated the earlier directed that the applicant while UDC cadre and above Group-D cadre, with Cs. met, it overstepped its legal re-adjudicate seniority (which is rather than implementing the e of the PCCIT. Furthermore, he present O.A., a successor d a rejection order dated pending representations. It is a risprudence that a successor or review, sit in appeal over, or ative decision already rendered

. e n e o x e f y l e r t e h l s e , r d a r r d Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 4.5

5. Learned paragra reiterate 5.1

6. After h perusal conside conclus 6.1

by its predecessor on the same of finality and promissory esto 5 The applicant, having succe departmental examinations (M 2002 and Inspector Examinat suffered immense financial and administrative delays and arbi d counsel for respondents ha aph/added paragraph in the OA ed that: 1 The representations filed by t on 27.10.2023. Further, no su PCCIT on 27.11.2020, instead, PCCIT to convene DPC on seniority. Accordingly, a rev 16.06.2021 which considering revise the seniority list of 30.06.2003 and subsequent re the minutes of the DPC were duly approved the minutes of t hearing the learned counsel l of the material available be ered the matter in its entire sions: 1 The applicant, Shri Saurabh K as an Upper Division Clerk (U Commission in May 1998 with applied for an Inter-Charge e file, as it violates the doctrine oppels. essfully cleared all mandatory Ministerial Staff Examination in tion in 2008) well in time, has d professional loss solely due to trary seniority assignments. s filed reply to the amended A in which the respondents have the applicant were disposed of uch order was passed by earlier approval was given by the then the matter of re-fixation of view DPC was convened on all the facts, found no reason to Tax Assistant published on ecruitment years. Subsequently, put up before the PCCIT, who the DPC on 16.06.2021 itself. ls for both the parties and efore this Tribunal, We have ety and arrived at following Kumar, was originally appointed DC) through the Staff Selection hin the Mumbai Charge. Having Transfer (ICT) to the Bihar e y n s o d e f r n f n o n , o d e g d n g r Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.2 6.3

Region in June 1999, his app Clause 2(b) of the CBDT circul fully applicable to the UDC subsequently forwarded by Mu 2 In the meantime, the depar CBDT’s Instruction dated 04. had been re-designated as Tax Accordingly, the applicant was the erstwhile cadre of U CIT(HQ)Pers./Re-designated/ dated 10.10.2001, in which mentioned at serial no. 194. F and Others (Notice Servers, employees) had been promote Level) after passing a compute depressions per hour in parall 4000-100-6000. During the p consideration, because the no changed to TA, the absorption Kumar on 25.02.2002 was m (UDC re-designated as TA), a own cadre was to be ignored is 3 Subsequently, CCIT/PCCIT, P ICT and issued an absorption the same pay scale of Rs Charge/Region. As of the dat (26.03.2002), there were no R created post of Tax Assistant ( post was not partly filled by partly filled by promotion quo 14.05.1990 circular (which w only) inapplicable, and any in got his ICT against the DR qu Therefore, as per the restructu TAs existing prior to restruc higher pay scale have to be m plication was considered under lar dated 14.05.1990, which was C cadre. His application was umbai. rtment was re-structured vide 06.2001, and the post of UDC x Assistant (TA) in own grade. s also re-designated as TA from UDC vide order No. Addl. /UDC to TA/G.B./13-2/2001 the name of the applicant is Further, Lower Division Clerks Record Keepers & Group D ed in the new TA Cadre (Matric er skill examination of 5000 key lel to the pay scale of UDC, i.e., pendency of the application for omenclature of UDC had been n of the applicant Sri Saurabh made in his own cadre/grade and any interpretation that his s factually incorrect. Patna considered his request for order as TA on 25.02.2002 in

s. 4000-6000 in the Bihar te of the ICT for the applicant Recruitment Rules for the newly (TA) notified in the Gazette; the direct recruitment quota and ta, rendering Clause 2(b) of the was to be filled by promotion nterpretation that the applicant uota of TA is factually incorrect. uring, the seniority of UDCs and cturing in a higher status and maintained as en-block senior to r s s e C . m .

s s D c y , r n h e s r n r t y e d e n t . d d o Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.4 6.5 6.6

the LDC & Peon (Group-D) before the restructuring. In co 25.02.2002, the applicant join 26.03.2002. 4 As established by the service r the inter-se seniority shall be in

1. Existing UDCs in t seniority in the regio

2. Existing LDCs in t seniority in the regio

3. Others in their order 5 The post of UDC was a grad higher pay scale (Rs.

matriculation-level Lower Divi D employees who entered the basic computer skill tests. Co absorption, the applicant's sen maintained below erstwhile U erstwhile LDCs and Group-D final seniority list of TAs erroneously placed the appli promoted as TA on 29.06.200 his absorption was made agai thereby violating the CBDT Placing him below Group-D an seniority lists was arbitrary, caused a misplacement. Due applicant's seniority could no even though he joined the re LDCs who were promoted sub the new TA cadre vis-a-vis a d the pre-restructuring cadre of U 6 The Principal Chief Commiss Patna, as the competent autho and recorded approval on 2 stating that:

“…………..In case Saurabh Kumar, both we having lower pay and status ompliance with the order dated ned the Bihar Charge/Region on records and restructuring rules, n the following order: the order of their existing on. the order of their existing on. r of selection by the DPC. duate-level position carrying a 4000-6000/-) compared to ision Clerks (LDCs) and Group- merged TA cadre after passing onsequently, upon merger and niority was legally required to be UDCs/TAs but en-block above personnel. However, the first s published on 14.08.2003 icant below LDCs (who were

01) by incorrectly assuming that inst a direct recruitment quota, instruction dated 04.06.2001. nd LDC employees in the 2003 violated service norms, and to this misunderstanding, the ot be fixed up to RY 2004-05, egion in RY 2001-02, allowing bsequently to regain seniority in irect promotee/transferee from UDC. sioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), ority, duly examined the matter 27.11.2020 (Annexure A-2) by of Manish Kumar and ere recruited as UDC and s d n , g g a o - g d e e t e t , .

d e , g n m , r y d d Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.7 6.8

joined Mumbai Region However, upon their jo Jharkhand Region, both w of the seniority list of TA who were re-designated a mention that circular da charge Transfer, it is spec official is required to be seniority in the cadre of ab officials were absorbed recruitment. These officia cadre and placing them be correct. It is pertinent to of UDC cadre and LDC ca and has different service joining. Therefore, equatin UDC cadre with LDC cadre

It is therefore prop Saurabh Kumar and Mani and be placed below all th cadre of UDC on their dat For the purpose, it is pro DPC for TA to Sr. TA, Sr. T

7 However, the subsequent administrative actions erro adjudicate seniority ignoring t Promotion Committee (DP sole mandate to consider legal jurisdiction or comp inter-se seniority. 8 The rejection order issued authority during the pendency is a well-settled principle of successor or equivalent author over, or overturn a binding a n upon their selection. oining as TA in Bihar & were placed at the bottom A, i.e., below UDC and LDC as TA. It is worthwhile to ated 14.05.1990 on Inter- cifically mentioned that the e placed at bottom of the bsorption. In this case, the against the direct quota als were appointed in UDC elow LDC employees is not mention that examination adre were held differently e condition at the time of ng the person appointed in e is wrong and unfair. posed that, seniority of Shri ish Kumar may be re-fixed he officials in the erstwhile te of joining in this Region. oposed to convene Review TA to OS and OS to ITI.” t Review DPC and later oneously attempted to re- the fact that a Departmental PC) or Review DPC has the r promotions; it lacks the etence to decide or rewrite on 27.10.2023 by a successor y of the O.A. is legally flawed. It f service jurisprudence that a rity cannot review, sit in appeal administrative decision already

. & m C o - e e e a C t n y f n i d e . w r - l e e e r t a l y Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI

Patna Bench 6.9 6.1 6.1 6.1

(Kumar

Me

pk/- rendered and approved by its p this violates the doctrine of adm 9 In view of the glaring admini competence by the Review DP binding nature of the initial c dated 27.11.2020; the applica on its own merits. 10 Therefore, the Original Appl the impugned decision of the and the subsequent rejection o aside, and the respondents applicant's seniority below al Cadre of UDC/TAs as on 26.0 passed by competent autho 27.11.2020 contained as in consequential promotion bene shall be completed within a pe date of receipt of certified copy 11 With these directions, the O and accordingly disposed of. 12 There shall be no order as to

Rajesh Chandra) (N ember (A)

predecessor on the same file, as ministrative finality. istrative oversights, the lack of PC to handle seniority, and the competent authority's approval nt has made out a strong case lication is liable to be allowed, Review DPC dated 16.06.2021 order dated 27.10.2023, are set s are directed to re-fix the ll the officials in the erstwhile 03.2002 in terms of the order rity i.e. respondent No.2 on Annexure A/2 and grant all efits accordingly. This exercise eriod of three months from the y of this order. Original Application is allowed cost. Narendra Kumar Johari)

Member (J)

s f e l e , t e e r n l e e d ) Digitally signed by POOJA KUMARI POOJA KUMARI