Mahesh Babubhai Brahmbhatt V. Union of India

SCA/10622/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Babubhai Brahmbhatt, a petitioner who challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, which dismissed his application for promotion within the Income Tax Department's canteen staff. The Tribunal had dismissed the application summarily, citing contradictory prayers in the application. The High Court found that the dismissal was overly technical and did not consider the substantive issues at hand. The court noted a grammatical error in the application that led to the perceived contradiction and emphasized that such errors should not determine the outcome of justice. The court appreciated the respondents' counsel's stance of not contesting on technicalities and decided to remand the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 802428 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels, AIR 2010 SC 3109
• Laws Referred To: Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: RONITH JOY
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; DPC; Hyper-technical approach; Income Tax Department; Promotion
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10622 of 2020 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10634 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== MAHESH BABUBHAI BRAHMBHATT Versus UNION OF INDIA ========================================================== Appearance: RONITH JOY(9560) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 4 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Page 1 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT Date : 23/03/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. These are a curiously strange and very peculiar matters, where the technicality has gained supremacy over the substantive justice due to the hyper technical approach of the Tribunal as detailed hereinafter. 2. These petitions are preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, where the orders of even date i.e. 27.02.2020 passed in Original Applications being OA No.372 of 2019 and OA No.371 of 2019 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad (“the Tribunal” for short) are under challenge. 3. The Tribunal has rejected the said Original Applications summarily on the ground that the prayers made by the petitioners are contradictory and, therefore, without issuance of notice and Page 2 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT without considering the material on record, the order of dismissal has been passed. 4. Facts in nutshell are taken from Special Civil Application No. 10622 of 2020 for adjudication of these petitions. 4.1. The petitioner was appointed as Wash Boy in the Income-Tax Department Cooperative Society Limited on 01.10.1991. It is his case that he was taken on the roll of the Income Tax Department and his designation had been changed from Wash Boy to Bearer. However, his pay-scale was not changed. He has continued to work as Bearer and the Department chose not to hold any DPC for promotion of canteen staff, in violation of the instructions. It was his case that the Income Tax Non-Statutory Department Canteen Recruitment Rules, 2004 were framed in the year 2004. The post of Bearer was in Group 'D'. Another post in Tea/Coffee Maker was also in Group 'D'. There Page 3 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT were promotions in the Department at Mumbai on 30.11.2004. There were representations made to the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax Department, Ahmedabad on 19.09.2005, 17.11.2005 and 10.11.2006 for grant of promotion to the canteen employees. It is also noticed that he was granted second ACP on 24.01.2017. The Director of Canteen reported on 29.08.2015 and gave the directions for filling-up the vacant post. However, nothing happened for convening the DPC. In the year 2017, qualifying test for promotion as clerk was conducted where the applicant had applied and on 13.04.2017, the computer test also was conducted. Couple of representations were made by the present petitioner and one another person seeking declaration of the results of the test. However, the same were not responded to and hence, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring OA No.372 of 2019 whereby the following reliefs came to be Page 4 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT sought:- “A) declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents Income Tax Department in holding regular DPC as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and quashing and setting the same. B) directing the respondents department to conduct regular DPC as per the guidelines by DOP&T from time to time. C) directing the respondents to issue necessary promotion orders promoting the applicant FROM THE POST OF Bearer; Directing the respondent department to declare the result of computer test held on 13.04.2017 and promote the applicant to the post of Clerk; and (E) passing any other appropriate order.” 5. On the ground that promotion is not a right and no person can claim promotion as of right, without issuance of any notice, holding the OA being devoid of merits, the same was dismissed. 6. What is particularly catching the attention of the Court is that by holding the prayers at paragraphs (A) and (B) sought in the OA application as self- Page 5 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT contradictory, the Tribunal held that OA has lost its sanctity. The query was also put to learned advocate representing the petitioner, who also chose not to press the relief sought at Paragraph (A), if the Tribunal had found the same to be contradictory to the Prayer (B). However, on the ground that this being the contrary relief, the Court held that the sanctity had been lost and, accordingly, dismissed the matter in limine. 7. We notice that the relief sought at Paragraph (A) says that “declaring the inaction of the part of the respondent Income Tax Department in holding the regular DPC as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” Here there was a need of adding “not” between the words “in” and “holding”. Once permitted, relief at paragraph (A) would not become contradictory to relief sought at Paragraph (B). Even otherwise, once the learned advocate having not pressed the relief Page 6 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT sought at Paragraph (A) so as to respect what the Tribunal was indicating, the Tribunal could not have held that in view of the contrary reliefs, OA had lost the sanctity. It ought to have been mindful of the fact that this grammatical error or inadvertent missing of words cannot decide the fate of any employee. No adjudicatory authority can afford to be so very hyper technical, so as to become oblivious of the real object while performing the duties of dispensation of justice. 7.1. It would be profitable to mind ourselves the famous words of wisdom of the Apex Court in this respect, where the Court has frowned upon giving unwarranted importance to the technicalities. The Apex Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels, AIR 2010 SC 3109, held that while doing complete and substantial justice, technicalities must not be Page 7 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT allowed to stand in the way of justice. 8. We notice that the Income Tax Department was not issued the notice and the OA was dismissed in limine, whereas the Court here had issued the notice on 06.01.2021, where Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for all the respondents. She has chosen not to file any affidavit-in-reply and has fairly submitted that on technicalities, the respondents would not be contesting the matters. 9. We appreciate the fairness on the part of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Without entering into the merits of the matter and also quashing and setting aside the findings and observations made on merits by the Tribunal, we choose to remand the matter to the Tribunal for it to adjudicate it by allowing the request of either incorporating the word “not” in the relief sought at Paragraph (A) or allowing the deletion of relief Page 8 of 9 C/SCA/10622/2020 JUDGMENT sought at Paragraph (A) from the application. 10. Matter shall be independently decided without being guided by any kind of observations made earlier or in this order. 11. Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (MS. SONIA GOKANI, J. ) (GITA GOPI,J) SUDHIR Page 9 of 9 "