ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 22-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-t 
).._ 
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 22, 1999 
[K. VENKATASWAMI, G.B. PATTANAIK 
B 
" 
AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
-.. . 
Se1vice Law: 
Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A (Amendment) c 
Rules: Rule 18. 
Promotion-Feeder posts-Quota for--Retirement of promotee officer 
of a particular feeder category-Vacancy arising due to-Filling up of-Held 
: Need not necessarily be filled up by an officer of that particular feeder 
D 
"" 
category only. 
_. 
Promotion-Feeder posts-Quota rule-Deviation from-Validity-
Quota rule of 6:l:2 prescribed for promotion from three feeder categories-Ex-
cess promotions from one particular feeder category made-More officers 
from other two feeder cfltegories promoted in order to co"ect the imbalance E 
thereby deviating from the quota rule-Held : Such deviation not unfair. 
Promotion-Feeder posts-Quota for-Held : Quota rule has to be 
foil owed while making the promotion---lf any change is needed in the quota 
rule, it is for party concerned to make out a case therefor and take appropriate 
F 
• 
steps for such a modification-No direction for change for quota rule, neces-
.. 
sary. 
The feeder categories for promotion to the posts in Group A 
services constituting the Indian Customs and Central Excise (Group A) 
Service are :-
G 
-.. 
(a) Superintendents of Central Excise, Group B; 
.... 
~ 
(b) Superintendents of Customs (P), Group Band 
(c) (i) Customs Appraisers, Group B; 
H 
809 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
(d) (ii) Promotees from the feeder-cadres of Customs Examiners in 
the ratio of 50:50. 
The Central Government, in order to resolve the grievances of 
various groups of officers, made certain proposals dated 8.6.1989 which 
B were approved by this Court. According to these proposals, vacancies in 
Group A posts were to be filled up in the quota of 6 : 1 : 2. Paragraph 6.3 
of the said proposals also provided that further vacancies were to be filled 
up on the basis of a 'cycle' in the above order. The Indian Customs and 
Central Excise Service Group A (Amendment) Rules, 1998 were according-
ly issued to give effect to the said proposals. 
c 
On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that the quota of 6:1:2 
must be maintained at all times in Group A posts by ensuring that out of 
9 promotee officers in Group A, 6 must be from the Central Excise; that 
as per paragraph 4 of the proposals, which mentioned posts and not 
D vacancies; whenever a vacancy in Group A arose due to the retirement of 
a promotee officer belonging to the Central Excise it must be filled up by 
a promotee officer from Central Excise and not by a promotee officer from · 
Categories (b) or (c), that the Central Government had deviated from the 
quota rule of 6:1:2 by promoting more officers from the other two feeder 
categories on an ad hoc basis; and that the quota of 6 : 1 : 2 applied to 
E posts and not vacancies. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. There is no merit in the contention of the Writ 
p 
Petitioners that at all times Group A posts must contain a ratio of 6 
promotees of Central Excise for every 9 Group A posts. Such an intention 
does not follow from paragraph 4 or paragraph 6.1. of the proposals dated 
8.6.1989 or the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group A 
(Amendment) Rules, 1998. [819-H; 820-A] 
G 
1.2. The purpose of paragraph 4 of the proposals dated 8.6.1989 is to 
fix a quota of 6:3. between Central Excise and Customs Groups and to fix 
a further s·ub-quota of 1:2. between the two sub-categories in the Customs 
Department. It ·.vas never intended in the said paragraph 4 that there 
should always be 6 promotees from Central Excise for every 9 posts in 
H Group A. [820-D-E] 
+ 
• 
+ 
ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. U.0.I. 
811 
). 
2.1. It is nowhere stated in paragraph 6.1. of the proposals dated A 
... 
8.6.1989 that posts falling vacant due to the retirement of Central Excise 
promotee officer in Group A are to be filled up only by promotion of 
another officer from Central Excise. [820-G] 
B 
2.2. Paragraph 6.3. of the proposals dated 8.6.1989 clearly refers to 
vacancies. There is no conflict between paragraphs 4, 6.1. and 6.3. On the 
other hand, they from a harmonious scheme. Once officers from the three 
feeder categories are promoted to Group A, they cease to have their 
birthmarks of Group B in the promoted category of Group A. There would 
then be no question
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.