Ramji Lal Meena vs D/o Income Tax on 23 October 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial) The applicant has preferred this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the speaking order/communication dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 whereby his claim/representation dated 02.03.2020 seeking reallocation of seniority in the cadre of Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the basis of the 2003 Departmental Examination has been rejected. The applicant also prays for issuance of directions upon the respondents to reallocate his seniority immediately after the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted for the 2003 batch, along with all consequential and notional benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 That the applicant was initially appointed as an Inspector of Income Tax (Direct Recruit) on 03.06.1993. Under the Recruitment Rules then in force, passing the Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers was a mandatory condition precedent for promotion to the post of ITO (Group ‘B’). The applicant appeared in the departmental examination conducted in the year 2003 but failed to qualify. 2.2 Thereafter, on 21.12.2004, the respondents notified the Income Tax Officer, Group 'B' Posts, Recruitment Rules, 2004, whereby the pre-condition of passing the departmental examination was omitted, making three years of regular service as an Inspector the sole criteria for promotion. Consequently, no departmental examinations were conducted during the years 2004 and 2005. During this interim phase, the department introduced various ad-hoc promotions on multiple dates between January 2004 and October 2006. 2.3 Subsequently, realizing an administrative omission, the Ministry of Finance issued the Income Tax Officer, Group 'B' Posts, Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005 on 24.03.2005. This amendment, which

PRATIK VYAS

::3 :: OA No. 427/2020

reintroduced the mandatory requirement of qualifying the departmental examination for promotion to the cadre of ITO, was expressly made effective with retrospective operation from 21.12.2004 (the date of publication of the principal rules). 2.4 The respondents thereafter conducted the departmental examination in October 2006. The applicant appeared in the said examination and qualified. The results were officially declared on 17.04.2007, and the applicant was subsequently promoted to the cadre of ITO on an ad-hoc basis vide promotion orders in May 2007 and accordingly, his seniority as Income Tax Officer was fixed at the bottom of the seniority list after considering all the DPCs declared earlier in accordance with his actual date of regular promotion/induction in 2007. 2.5 Being aggrieved the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 02.03.2020 whereby he has requested to reallocate his seniority for promotion after the DPC was made on the basis of 2003 exams. However, the same remained pending. Therefore, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 198/2020 and this Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.2020 disposed of the said OA with direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and intimate the decision thereon to the applicant. This Tribunal also observed that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 2.6 Thereafter, the respondents in compliance of the direction issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 198/2020 considered the representation of the applicant and rejected the same by passing speaking order/communication dated 15.09.2020 by assigning the reason that he had appeared in departmental examination for the post of ITO in 2003 but could not qualify. Further, Departmental examination could not be held in 2004 and 2005. You appeared in examination in 2006 and qualified it based on result declared in April 2007 and thereafter promoted to ITO in May 2007. It is stated in this regard that DPC for V.Y 2003-04 was convened on 02.03.2005. The consequent

PRATIK VYAS

::4 :: OA No. 427/2020

promotion Order No. 59 of 2004-05 was passed on 02.03.2005. Although, the DPC was conducted on 02.03.2005 when Notification dated 21.04.2004 was effective wherein passing of ITO promotion examination was not a pre- requisite for promotion to the cadre of ITO but it may be appreciated that this DPC was meant for the V.Y 2003-04 and the crucial date of determining eligibility for the DPC was 01.01.2003. The crucial date for determining eligibility in case of financial year-based vacancy year falls on January 1, immediately preceding such vacancy year. Therefore, it was mandatory to qualify ITO promotion examination as on crucial date of eligibility i.e on 01.01.2003 (for V.Y 2003-04) for the promotion of ITO. It may also be noted that all the Income Tax Inspectors (feeder cadre to ITO) who were considered for the promotion to ITO by DPC dated 02.03.2005 had qualified the departmental examination as on crucial date of eligibility i.e. 01.01.2003. 2.7 Hence, the applicant has no other efficacious remedy but to approach this Tribunal; this OA.

3. In support of the prayer sought in this OA, Mr. Hardik V Vora learned counsel for the applicant mainly submitted as under:- 3.1 That the respondents failed to conduct the mandatory departmental examination during the years 2004 and 2005, therefore, for no fault on the part of the applicant, he was unjustly deprived of an opportunity to qualify and secure regular promotion earlier. It is stated that the Rule 1 of the Rules for the Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers explicitly mandates that the promotional examination shall be held "every year in the first quarter of the financial year". The total failure of the respondents to conduct any promotional examinations during the financial/vacancy years 2004–05 and 2005–06 constitutes a direct breach of statutory rules. The applicant was entirely willing and eligible to appear, but was completely deprived of his right to be considered for regular promotion due to this administrative omission. Therefore, default on the part of the respondents to

PRATIK VYAS

::5 :: OA No. 427/2020

conduct examination annually cannot operate to the prejudice of the employee. 3.2 Further, he placed reliance on the settled law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar (1989 Supp (1) SCC 393). The Apex Court held that when a scheme of promotion links seniority to passing an exam, but the Government fails to hold the examination annually as required by the rules, it is unjust, unreasonable, and arbitrary to penalise a person for the default of the Government. Therefore, the applicant’s seniority should be restored to protect him from the department's failure to host the exams. 3.3 It is argued that he action of the respondents in convening continuous ad- hoc DPCs (between 2004 and March 2007) and moving forward with promotional assignments while completely bypassing the examination process is fundamentally de hors the recruitment rules. Under the 2005 Amendment Rules, passing the exam was a non-negotiable prerequisite. Therefore, making promotions without confirming that candidates qualified in a corresponding exam cycle is legally unsustainable. 3.4 It is argued that even after the department recognized its mistake and conducted the departmental examination in October 2006, the respondents acted with arbitrary haste. Instead of waiting for the marks to be tabulated and declared, the respondents rushed to execute final ad-hoc DPCs on 01.11.2006, 05.12.2006, 03.01.2007, and 01.03.2007. This effectively blocked vacancies and pushed the applicant to the bottom of the list when his results were finalized just weeks later on 17.04.2007. 3.5 Learned counsel submitted that the identical issue was litigated before the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in Ashwani Kumar Singh v. Union of India (O.A. No. 936/2005), wherein the Court explicitly restrained the department from holding any DPC for the post of ITO without first conducting the mandatory departmental examination and considering all who pass it.

PRATIK VYAS

::6 :: OA No. 427/2020

Similarly, the Principal Bench in Sanjeev Kumar Meena v. Ministry of Finance (O.A. No. 3434/2016) held that conducting regular DPCs and granting promotions in utter disregard of the examination cycle, while ignoring the inter-se seniority of seniors in the feeder category, is wholly unjustified and unsustainable. The department's Review Application (R.A. No. 158/2019) against this decision was also flatly rejected. Therefore, it is contended that his seniority should be reallocated with a deemed date from 2003, placing him directly below the batch that qualified in the 2003 examination.

4. Per Contra, on receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal respondents have filed the reply and denied the claim of the applicant. Mr. Chirayu Mehta learned counsel for the respondents by referring the reply mainly submitted as under:- 4.1 It is stated that OA is filed after a lapse of delay, in this regard, it is stated that the applicant's name figured at Seniority No. 1220 in the All India Inter- se Seniority List of ITOs firmed up as on 01.01.2012 (circulated on 01.09.2015), and subsequently at Seniority No. 4416 in the updated Seniority List firmed up on 05.02.2018 following the implementation of the N.R. Parmar judgment. The applicant accepted his placement for years without any timely legal challenge, and the present O.A., filed in the year 2020, suffers from gross delay and laches. Therefore, granting retrospective seniority at this late stage would critically unsettle established seniority positions across the entire cadre. 4.2 Further, it is argued that the regular DPC for the Vacancy Year 2003-04 was convened on 02.03.2005. Pursuant to DoPT guidelines and O.M. dated 17.09.1998, the crucial date for determining the eligibility of officials for the financial year-based Vacancy Year 2003-04 was 01.01.2003. On that crucial date, passing the departmental examination was a strict statutory requirement. Since the applicant had admittedly failed to qualify the 2003

PRATIK VYAS

::7 :: OA No. 427/2020

examination, he was legally ineligible to be considered against the 2003-04 vacancy panel. 4.3 Further, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Rule 14 of the Rules for the Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers, 2004, which explicitly addresses administrative delays and provides that that delay in conducting examinations or declaring results can occur due to various valid administrative factors and explicitly provides that such delays shall not give rise to any rightful claim for promotion or a deemed date of eligibility. 4.4 It is stated that the DPC for ITO, for Vacancy Year 2003-04 was convened on 02.03.2005. As per DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989 which laid down consolidated instructions on Departmental Promotion Committees and related matters, a vacancy shall be filled in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force on the date of vacancy, unless rules made subsequently have been expressly given retrospective effect (Annexure R/4). It further states that since amendments to recruitment rules normally have only prospective application, the existing vacancies should be filled as per the recruitment rules in force. Thus, it is stated that even though the DPC was convened on 02.03.2005, the vacancy year against which panel list was recommended was 2003-04. Thus, the recruitment rules applicable for vacancy year 2003-04 would be those which were in force on the date of vacancy 1.e. 01.04.2003. At that time, one of the requisite conditions of eligibility for promotion of ITO was passing Departmental examination for Income Tax Officers. Further, the crucial date as defined in OM dated 17.09.1998 for determining eligibility in case of vacancy year 2003-04 based vacancy was 01.01.2003 and on that day applicant had not cleared the departmental examination for ITO. In other words for promotion to the post of ITO against vacancy year 2003-04, eligibility condition prevalent on 01.01.2003 was to be fulfilled. On 01.01.2003, passing of departmental examination for ITO was mandatory and admittedly applicant had not cleared the same. Therefore the applicant was rightly denied the seniority from the year 2003 and there is no illegality as alleged.

PRATIK VYAS

::8 :: OA No. 427/2020

4.5 In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the OA lacks merit and accordingly, the same is required to be dismissed.

5. In rejoinder, the applicant submits that the O.A. is fully within the statutory limitation period under Section 21 of the Act. The applicant was made aware of the drastic impact on his seniority position only around 2018 when the N.R. Parmar restructuring list was fully circulated and executed. Furthermore, because seniority and pay fixation errors create a recurring financial disadvantage month after month, it constitutes a continuous cause of action. Since the applicant immediately filed representations and approached this Tribunal within weeks of the final rejection order dated 15.09.2020, there is no delay or laches on his part.

6. We have carefully evaluated the competitive submissions of both the learned counsels, examined the detailed text documents on record, and analyzed the statutory provisions governing the cadre.

7. It can be seen that the applicant has completely failed to establish a viable claim. For the Vacancy Year 2003-04, the statutory cutoff date for determining the parameters of eligibility was 01.01.2003. On that day, the applicant did not possess the mandatory prerequisite qualification of having cleared the departmental examination. An official who fails to clear a mandatory qualifying examination cannot claim parity with qualified peers or demand entry into a selection pool for which he lacked the benchmark criteria. 7.1 The controversy, therefore, is not whether the applicant had sufficient service in the feeder cadre. The principal question is whether, notwithstanding his failure to qualify the departmental examination in 2003, he can claim seniority in the promotional cadre with reference to vacancies against which he did not fulfil the prescribed eligibility conditions on the relevant crucial dates.

PRATIK VYAS

::9 :: OA No. 427/2020

7.2 In service jurisprudence, the determination of eligibility for promotion must be undertaken with reference to the applicable Recruitment Rules and the instructions governing the relevant selection or promotion process. Length of service in the feeder cadre, by itself, does not necessarily confer a right to promotion or to seniority in the promotional cadre from an earlier date. The employee must also satisfy the other conditions prescribed under the applicable rules. 7.3 In the present case, the Recruitment Rules dated 21.12.2004 were amended by the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005, with retrospective effect from 21.12.2004. Under the amended provision, qualifying the departmental examination was prescribed as a condition for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer, in addition to the requisite regular service in the feeder grade. The respondents have explained that, for the vacancy year 2003-04, the DPC was convened on 02.03.2005 and that the eligibility of officials was required to be determined with reference to the applicable rules and the prescribed crucial date. Their specific case is that the crucial date was 01.01.2003 and that, on that date, the applicant had not qualified the departmental examination, we are in agreement with the said submission of the respondents. 7.4 The applicant has not disputed the fact that he did not qualify the examination conducted in 2003. Nor has he established that he had acquired the prescribed examination qualification on the crucial date applicable to the vacancy year 2003-04. In these circumstances, his claim to be treated as eligible for promotion against that vacancy year cannot be accepted merely because he subsequently qualified the examination in 2006.

8. The applicant also contended that the department failed to conduct examinations in 2004 and 2005 and that the resulting loss of opportunity should not operate to his disadvantage. We appreciate the basis of this grievance.

PRATIK VYAS

::10 :: OA No. 427/2020

However, the question before us is whether such non-conduct of examinations, by itself, entitles the applicant to be treated as having qualified an examination which he had not in fact passed, or to be assigned seniority from a date preceding his acquisition of the prescribed qualification. 8.1 In this regard, we find merit in the respondents' reliance upon Rule 14 of the Rules for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers, 2004. The said Rule expressly addresses delay in conducting examinations or declaring results and provides that such delay does not create a rightful claim to be deemed eligible for promotion as on 1 January of the relevant vacancy year, irrespective of when the examination is conducted or its result declared. 8.2 Therefore, in the face of this specific provision, the applicant cannot claim automatic retrospective eligibility merely because examinations were not held during 2004 and 2005. It is also material that the applicant acquired the prescribed examination qualification only in April 2007 and was promoted thereafter. The respondents have assigned his seniority with reference to his promotion in May 2007. The applicant has not demonstrated from the material placed before us that the applicable rules require his seniority to be antedated to the vacancy years claimed by him. 8.3 We, therefore, find that the applicant has failed to establish an enforceable right to retrospective seniority from the year 2003 or to automatic consideration for promotion against the vacancy years 2004-05 and 2005-06.

9. The applicant’s reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagannath Achyut Karandikar (supra) is structurally misplaced. In that case, the relevant rules provided that an official would lose his existing seniority if he failed to pass the examination within a defined time bound structure, provided the state regularized the exam cycle annually. The Apex Court stepped in to prevent a punitive loss of seniority where the state defaulted on its exam cycle.

PRATIK VYAS

::11 :: OA No. 427/2020

In the present case, the applicant is not facing a punitive reduction of existing seniority; rather, he is seeking an affirmative, retrospective advancement to a higher regular post from a backdate when he did not hold the statutory qualifications. 9.1 Further, the applicants reliance on order of co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal in Sanjeev Kumar Meena (supra) and Ashwani Kumar Singh (supra) is also misplaced as the said orders were passed under distinct, localized factual environments involving different regional dynamics, and they cannot dilute the express operation of Rule 14 of the Departmental Examination Rules and the retrospective regularizations implemented across the Gujarat. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned speaking order dated 15.09.2020 passed by the Respondent No. 3 is a well-reasoned order that is fully aligned with the applicable recruitment rules and DoPT instructions. The applicant has failed to establish any violation of his legal or fundamental rights.

10. In view of the discussions made herein above, the present Original Application is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand dispose of. No costs.

Sanjiv Kumar

Jayesh V Bhairavia Member (A)

Member(J)

/pratik/

PRATIK VYAS