Hari Om Maratha V. Union of India and Civil Services Officer's Institute

W.P.(C)/2690/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around Hari Om Maratha, a Judicial Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, who challenged the Civil Services Officer's Institute's (CSOI) decision to reject his membership application. The rejection was based on an alleged ineligibility, which CSOI failed to substantiate despite multiple requests for clarification under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court found that the CSOI had improperly denied the petitioner's application, noting that similar applicants had been granted membership and that the petitioner's position qualified under the CSOI's eligibility criteria.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701497 (HC-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005, All India Service Act, 1951
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK GOYAL; PAWAN PATHAK; ARUN BHARDWAJ; JAGRATI SINGH; MAMTA MAYEE
• Assessee Lawyers: ANEESH MITTAL; ABHISHEK MARATHA; NUPUR SHARMA; SHREYA SHARMA
• Keywords: Eligibility; Income tax appellate tribunal; Judicial member; CSOI membership; General Central Service (Group A)
• Section: 19; 19(3)

Judgement Text

" W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 1 of 8 $~4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2690/2017 & CM No. 5474/2018 & CM No. 7037/2019 HARI OM MARATHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Aneesh Mittal, Mr Abhishek Maratha, Ms Nupur Sharma and Ms Shreya Sharma, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Vivek Goyal, CGSC with Mr Pawan Pathak, Advocate for R-1. Mr Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Ms Jagrati Singh and Ms Mamta Mayee, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU O R D E R % 14.02.2019 VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the decision of respondent no.2- Civil Services Officer‟s Institute (hereafter „CSOI‟) in rejecting the petitioner‟s application for his admission on the basis that the petitioner was not eligible. 2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of a Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by an appointment letter dated W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 2 of 8 02.08.1999. The petitioner claims that the said post belongs to General Central Services (Group A) and, therefore, the petitioner is eligible for being considered for the membership of CSOI. 3. The petitioner applied for the membership of CSOI on 21.08.2012 while he was posted at the Jabalpur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. 4. Since the petitioner did not receive any response to his application, he sent a letter dated 14.03.2013 seeking further information with regard to his application. This letter also did not elicit any response. The averments made in the petition clearly indicate that the petitioner has made several efforts to elicit information with regard to his application but has received no satisfactory response. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner sent several complaints. After considerable pursuing, the petitioner was informed that he was found ineligible for membership of CSOI, however, he was not provided any specific reasons for the same. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner took recourse to the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act‟) for seeking the specific reasons as to why he was found ineligible for membership of CSOI and filed an application dated 11.09.2015. The CPIO of CSOI responded to the petitioner‟s application by a letter dated 17.10.2015. His response to the information, as to the specific reasons for holding the petitioner ineligible for CSOI‟s membership, was in two words: “Not Eligible”. W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 3 of 8 7. Aggrieved by the denial on the part of the CPIO to furnish a proper response to the petitioner‟s queries, the petitioner preferred a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19 of the RTI Act. The said appeal also did not elicit a satisfactory result. Consequently, the petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 19.01.2017, whereby the CIC directed CSOI to provide complete and correct information as sought by the petitioner in his application dated 11.09.2015. 8. In compliance with the aforesaid order, CSOI sent a letter dated 10.02.2017 informing the petitioner that All India Service (AIS) Retired Officers posted in official appointments in Tribunals and Commissions are ineligible for membership of CSOI. The petitioner was further informed that as per the byelaws of CSOI, the eligibility for membership of CSOI is as follows:- “(i) All serving and retired officers of grade of Deputy Secretary and above to GOI from ALL India Services. (ii) Group „A‟ officers of equivalent status under the Central Government.” 9. According to the petitioner, he fulfils the eligibility criteria and, therefore, has filed the present petition impugning the decision of CSOI to reject his application for membership on the ground of eligibility. 10. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to the W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 4 of 8 relevant clause of the Memorandum of Association with regard to the membership of CSOI. The relevant clause of the Memorandum and Articles of Association is set out below:- “Membership shall be open to the serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and above, from all India Services and Group “A” officers of equivalent status working under the Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and autonomous institutions located in Delhi subject to approval of the governing council/Executive Committee. The membership for the executives of Public Sector undertaking shall be subject to the approval of the Governing Council. ” 11. It is apparent from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause that the membership of CSOI is available to (i) all serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and above from All India Services; and (ii) Group “A” officers of equivalent status working under the Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and autonomous institutes located in Delhi. The Executives of Public Sector Undertakings are also eligible for membership subject to approval of the Governing Council. 12. The petitioner has filed a copy of the appointment letter, which indicates that the petitioner‟s appointment as a Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was to a post belonging to the “General Central service (Group “A”). The relevant extract of his appointment letter dated 02.08.1999 is set out below:- W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 5 of 8 “Sir, 1. With reference to your application dated 7.10.1997 I am directed to say that the President is pleased to offer you an appointment as Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the following terms and conditions:- 1. The said post of Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal belongs to General Central Service (Group 'A') and carries a pay scale of Rs.22,400- 525-24,500/- p.m. In addition, you will be entitled to allowances at the rates admissible to Central Govt. Officers of your category, under and subject to, the conditions laid down in rules and orders governing the grant of such allowances, in force from time to time. * * * *” 13. In view of the above, the petitioner‟s contention that he was appointed to a post of General Central Service (Group „A‟) cannot be disputed. 14. The petitioner has also filed an application indicating the names of 24 persons, who are members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and have been granted membership of CSOI. It was earnestly contended in the aforesaid view that the decision of CSOI to reject the petitioner‟s application on the ground of eligibility was untenable. 15. Notice in the present petition was issued on 27.03.2017, however, the respondents failed to file any response to the present petition. On 12.05.2017, an opportunity was granted to the W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 6 of 8 respondents to file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks, however, respondent no.2 did not avail of the said opportunity. On 12.02.2018, this Court had noted that CSOI had failed to file a counter affidavit despite opportunities being granted. On 17.01.2019 a final opportunity was granted to the respondents to file a counter affidavit within a period of one week. Despite the same, the respondents did not file the counter affidavit. Finally, on 07.02.2019, this Court passed an order closing the right of the respondents to file a counter affidavit. 16. In view of the above, the averments made in the petition remained untraversed. However, today Mr Arun Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 (CSOI) submits that a counter affidavit has been filed along with an application. Although, this Court finds no credible reason for failure on the part of respondent no.2 to file a counter affidavit, nonetheless, Mr Bhardwaj has been permitted to address arguments based on the same. 17. He contended that the expression “Group “A” Officers” must be restricted to only those officers who are members of All India Services constituted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and are governed under the provisions of All India Service Act, 1951. He submitted that in the aforesaid view, the petitioner could not be considered as “Group A Officer”. The aforesaid contention is unpersuasive. A plain reading of the relevant clause regarding eligibility for membership to CSOI indicates that it is in three parts: “(i) All serving and retired officers of the grade of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India and W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 7 of 8 above from All India Services; (ii) Group A Officers of equivalent status working under Central Government and those on deputation to PSUs and autonomous institutes located in Delhi; and (iii) Executives of Public Sector undertakings.” 18. The expression “Group „A‟ Officers of equivalent status” cannot be restricted only to officers of All India Services. It would include all officers appointed on Group A Posts. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed to the Post of Judicial Member in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and that post belongs to “General Central Service (Group „A‟)”. This Court also has reservation as to whether a distinction can be drawn between officers serving on the same posts based on their source of joining the service. However, it is not necessary to examine the same in view of the aforesaid interpretation of the eligibility clause. 19. During the course of the arguments, this Court had pointedly asked Mr Bhardwaj as to the CSOI‟s response to the averment that several members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have been granted membership of CSOI. His only response was that there may have been some inadvertent mistakes in granting membership. The said contention is unpersuasive. 20. It is, thus, clear that respondent no.2 has also accepted members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as qualifying the eligibility criteria for membership of CSOI. W.P. (C) 2690/2017 Page 8 of 8 21. Before concluding, this Court must express its displeasure as to the conduct of CSOI. The averments made in the petition indicate that the petitioner had applied on 21.08.2012 but he received no response to his application. The petitioner sent various communications seeking the status of his application but the same had not elicited any response. The petitioner had to take recourse to the RTI Act to obtain information regarding rejection of his application. This too was not responded to satisfactorily, and the petitioner had to appeal to the Central Information Commission to redress his grievance in this regard. As noticed above, CSOI has been equally lackadaisical in conducting the case in this Court as well. 22. In view of the above, the petition is allowed with costs quantified at ₹25,000/-. The CSOI shall consider the petitioner‟s application for membership to CSOI. The CSOI shall also pay the costs as awarded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. All pending applications stand disposed of. VIBHU BAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 14, 2019 pkv "