Sri Chagaleru Durga PRasad V. The union of India

WP/14761/2010

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which interdicted the meeting of the second Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for appointing Income Tax Officers (ITOs). The petitioners argued that the interdiction was based on a prima facie satisfaction of a transgression of reservation principles in promotions, which could leave critical public offices unfilled. The respondents, comprising various government entities and individuals, had previously been involved in a dispute over the proper application of reservation policies in promotions to ITO posts. The court's decision to set aside the Tribunal's order was based on the principle that public interest, particularly the functionality of government offices, should not be compromised due to alleged irregularities in promotions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 764226 (HC-HYDERABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA; B N SARMA; J SUDHEER
• Assessee Lawyers: SIVA
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Income Tax Officers; Promotion; Reservation; Scheduled Castes and Tribes; Merit ranking

Judgement Text

"HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No. 14761 OF 2010 BETWEEN: C.Durga Prasad and others .. Petitioners And The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No. 14761 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram,J) Heard Sri Siva, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for the respondent No.1 and Sri B.N.Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, Sri J.Sudheer, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 7. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, dated 17.06.2010 whereby the meeting of the second DPC is interdicted, is assailed in this writ petition. The non-official respondents herein had filed O.A. claiming in substance that ignoring the merit ranking of certain Income Tax Inspectors (which entitle them to be considered for appointment as Income Tax Officers in unreserved vacancies), they were appointed as I.T.Os. in reserved vacancies and as a consequence, proportionate number of vacancies reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes have been illegally occupied by meritorious inspectors belonging to these communities contrary to the settled principles governing reservations to the public posts, qua, Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicants sought review of the promotions already made to the posts of Income Tax Officers so that meritorious Scheduled Tribe candidates (from the feeder category of Income Tax Inspectors) should be admitted against unreserved vacancies and a proportionate number of reserved vacancies should be identified for making such vacancies available to lower ranked Income Tax Inspectors belonging to the relevant reserved categories, of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Notices in O.A.No.1092 of 2009 could not be served on respondents 5 to 23 and 26 to 28 and therefore the Tribunal by the order impugned, permitted the counsel for the applicants therein to take out personal notices on the unserved non official respondents and while doing so directed that no second DPC (to consider future appointments by promotion to the posts of Income Tax Officers) should be convened, presumably on a prima facie satisfaction that there occurred a transgression of the settled principles of reservation in the appointment by promotion to the post of Income Tax Officers. As a consequence of the order of the Tribunal impugned herein, till the issue as to the validity of the earlier appointments to the posts of Income tax Officers is settled/adjudicated by the Tribunal, no further appointments to the posts of Income Tax Officers could be made and the posts of Income Tax Officers would remain vacant till adjudication by the Tribunal. It is a settled principle of administrative law and of Judicial discretion, particularly while considering interlocutory relief, that public interest out weighs individual interest. It is not in the public interest that a critical public office of Income Tax Officers exercising quasi judicial powers including assessments and relevant to a critical area of revenue of the State should remain unmanned on account of alleged irregularities in promotion. Interdicting the process of appointment to the posts of Income Tax Officers and in the circumstances of the present case constitutes an irrational exercise of discretion. The impugned order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench suffers from this infirmity in the exercise of its discretion and requires to be reviewed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the analyses above, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench dated 17.06.2010 is set aside. Any appointment made to the posts of Income Tax Officers consequent on the selection process by the DPC shall be subject to the result of O.A.No.1092 of 2009 and the third respondent shall intimate to each of the officers so appointed (as Income Tax Officers) about the pendency of O.A.No.1092 of 2009 and that the appointments are subject to the result of the O.A. The writ petition is allowed as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J Dated: 22.06.2010 ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J kvrm/ccm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO W.P.No. 14761 OF 2010 Dated: 22.06.2010 "