ARATHI SARAH SUNI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(HG)(ADMN)

OP (CAT)/103/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around the petitioner, Arathi Sarah Sunil, who challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order declining to extend the interim order of status quo on the appointment of Inspectors of Income Tax. The Tribunal had initially maintained the status quo to allow for the resolution of the original application but later decided to vacate this order, allowing the appointments to proceed. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on incorrect factual foundations and that it unjustly excluded her from the selection list. The High Court, however, agreed with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need to prevent the lapse of the selection process and potential appointments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 699940 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH
• Assessee Lawyers: K J ISAAC; ELIZABETH VARKEY; JITHIN ISAAC
• Keywords: Appointment; Income Tax; Interim order; Selection List; Sports Quota

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 103 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 IN OA 156/2017 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER/APPLICANT: ----------------------- ARATHI SARAH SUNIL AGED 22 YEARS, D/O DR. SUNIL K MATHAI, KUNJAN BAWA ROAD, CHETTICHIRA, VYTTILA PO COCHIN-682019 BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(HQ)(ADMN) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018 2. SAJAN PRAKASH WELFARE INSPECTOR, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE-560023 3. THULASI P.C TARANA, VNRA 24, VIKAS NAGAR, PONOOTH SOUTH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020 4. ALLWYN FRANCIS KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KANDANADU, KOLLAMPILLY KOTTAYAM-686001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 103 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.156 OF 2017 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNSEL STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 156/2017 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ----------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE rmm C.T.RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ========================= O.P.(CAT) No.103 of 2017 ========================= Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2017. J U D G M E N T C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. This original petition is directed against the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.156/2017. The petitioner herein was the applicant therein. She moved the said original application seeking the following reliefs:- “i. Call for the entire records relating to the selection pursuant to Annexure A1 notification and quash the selection list as far as it excludes the applicant; ii. Declare that the applicant is legally eligible for appointment to the post of Inspectors of Income Tax (PB-II), by virtue of her qualifications, participations and achievements in recognized tournaments and performance in the field trials. iii. Direct the 1st respondent to give appointment to the applicants for the post of Inspectors of Income Tax (PB-II).” 2. On 01.03.2017 the Original Application came up for consideration before the Tribunal and on that day the Tribunal passed an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the appointment pursuant to Annexure A1, in respect of the OP (CAT) No.103/2017 2 post of Inspector of Income Tax. As per Ext.P4 order dated 28.03.2017 virtually the Tribunal vacated the said order rather, declined to extend the order of status quo and made it clear that selection and appointment to the post of Inspector of Income Tax pursuant to Annexure-A1 would be subject to the final outcome of O.A.No.156/2017. After passing such an order vide Ext.P4 order the Tribunal listed the matter to 05.04.2017. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that the captioned Original Petition was filed. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the factual foundations which lead to Ext.P4 order is absolutely incorrect. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal of paragraph 4 of Ext.P4 would reveal that virtually the Tribunal was not inclined to extend the order of status quo based on the submissions made on behalf of the respondents to the effect that unless the selection and appointment would be completed by 31.03.2017 it would get lapsed and in such eventuality the next turn would arise only after ten years. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 3 5. The Tribunal observed that occurrence of such a situation would result in negation of justice to all concerned. The Tribunal further took note of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that though the applicant was held not eligible to be posted as instructor of income tax, she was already selected for appointment to the post of tax assistant in the Income Tax Department. The Tribunal also took note of the submission made by the respondents that one of the selectees, is not likely to join and in such eventuality the petitioner might get appointment. That apart, a scanning of impugned Ext.P4 order would reveal that the Tribunal had specifically ordered to make a specific mention in the order of appointment made pursuant to Annexure A1 to the effect that such appointment would be subject to the final outcome of the above mentioned Original Application. The question is when the Original Application is pending whether an interim order of this nature warrants interference. True that when the matter came up for admission, on 01.03.2017 the Tribunal passed an interim order to maintain status quo with respect to the appointment pursuant to Annexure 1. 6. It cannot be said that the Tribunal had made an OP (CAT) No.103/2017 4 observation that there is a likelihood of the selection itself get lapsed, if appointments were not made before 31.03.2017. At the same time, a perusal of Ext.P2, which is a copy of the preliminary statement filed by the respondents, would reveal that such a statement was made in paragraph 6, which reads thus:- “6. The entire selection procedure for recruitment of sports persons for the year 2016-17 has to be completed before the end of the current financial year, failing which the vacanies under sports quota may get lapsed. Even the applicant will lose her chance.” 7. A perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that it is a preliminary statement filed on behalf of the official respondents. In such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed a flaw in making a note of such a submission made on behalf of the respondents while passing the impugned interim orders. Virtually the Tribunal wanted to avoid a situation where non of the parties would get an appointment pursuant to Annexure A1. It is in the said contest that the Tribunal observed that such an eventuality as apprehended would cause negation of justice to all. In such circumstances, taking the impugned interim order in O.A. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 5 No.156/2017, we are of the view that the Tribunal had passed such order only to maintain the balance and also to make the matter live. 8. On perusing the impugned order, we are of the view that it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as it would not defeat his right if ultimately the Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled to get appointment as Inspector of Income tax, pursuant to selection based on Annexure A1. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4 especially taking note of the fact that the Original Application is pending. We are making it clear that we have not made any observation on the merits of the matter. At the same time, we are of the view that, if the petitioner is of the view that the statement in paragraph 4 of impugned Ext.P4 is incorrect, it will be open to the petitioner to move the Tribunal by filing appropriate petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioner sounded an apprehension that unless there is an order fixing a time limit for the disposal of the Original Application there is a chance of the matter getting protracted at the instance of the respondents. The Original Application is of the year 2017. There is no reason for us to believe that OP (CAT) No.103/2017 6 even in case the petitioner is able to convince the Tribunal regarding the urgency of the matter it would not be disposed of within a reasonable time. With the said observations, this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR , JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE rmm // True copy // P.A. To Judge "