Radhey Shyam Verma V. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi and The Central Board of Direct Taxes represented by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi and The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur and Ram Kishan Bairwa S/o Shri G.Ram, Income Tax Inspector, presently posted at Jaipur and Department of Personnel & Training through its Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi

CW/13013/2008

AI Insights

The case involves Radhey Shyam Verma, the petitioner, who challenged the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding his non-consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Income Tax Department. The promotion was based on a select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the vacancy year 2000-2001. The petitioner argued that the DPC should have considered him for promotion as the posts became available after the DPC met, and also sought similar relaxation in eligibility that was granted in a subsequent year (2002-2003) for not clearing the departmental examination by the cut-off date. The Tribunal and the High Court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed eligibility dates to maintain administrative order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 700915 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV JAIN; ANUPAM AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL SAMDARIA
• Keywords: Departmental Examination; DPC; Eligibility; Income Tax Inspector; Promotion

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13013 / 2008 Radhey Shyam Verma S/o Shri Lallu Ram Verma, aged about 37 years, R/o 77/169, Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Central Board of Direct Taxes represented by its Chairman, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. 4. Ram Kishan Bairwa S/o Shri G.Ram, Income Tax Inspector, presently posted at Jaipur. 5. Department of Personnel & Training through its Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Samdaria. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain. Mr. Anupam Agarwal. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 30/11/2017 (1) Heard learned Counsel for the writ petitioner. (2) Two contentions have been advanced and as we proceed to note the same we deal with them simultaneously. (3) For the vacancy year 1.4.2000-31.03.2001, DPC met on 19.06.2001 to prepare the select list for promotion of Senior Income Tax Assistants to the post of Inspector. The Rule requires (2 of 3) [CW-13013/2008] eligibility to be acquired by 1.1.2000. Another eligibility was that the candidate in the feeder panel had to clear a departmental examination. The petitioner cleared the departmental examination on 30.05.2000. Since the petitioner had not attained the eligibility in the form of clearing the departmental examination as on 1.1.2000, his case was not considered by the DPC. (4) First contention advanced is that the posts which were to be filled up became available after the DPC met and thus the petitioner ought to have been considered by the DPC. (5) The argument has rightly been repelled by the Central Administrative Tribunal for the reason eligibility has to be acquired by the prescribed date. DPCs meet later. Eligibility cannot be linked with the date when DPCs meets for the reason it would create administrative chaos inasmuch as files are processed well in advance. (6) Second contention advanced is that for the year 2002- 2003 relaxation was granted to the candidates for acquiring the eligibility of clearing the departmental examination. The argument is that similar benefits ought to have been granted to the petitioner. (7) The Tribunal has noted that relaxation was granted by the department on the reasoning that the department could not hold the examination which was to be conducted in the month of May,2001. The examination was conducted in January, 2002 and the result was declared in July, 2002. The cut off date for eligibility being 1.1.2002, the department give relaxation. (3 of 3) [CW-13013/2008] (8) Simply because relaxation is accorded in a subsequent year would not mean that not granting the relaxation in a previous year would be arbitrary. In the instant case, good reasons have been given to grant relaxation for the vacancy year 2002-2003. The said reasons did not exist for the previous vacancy year. (9) Affirming the view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal the writ petition is dismissed. (DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J. N.Gandhi/33 "