LexCHENNAI CUSTOMS APPRAISING OFFICERS ASSN. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008) 9 S.C.R. 475 CHENNAI CUSTOMS APPRAISING OFFICERS ASSN. II. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.3630 of 2008) MAY 16, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Service Law: ~ A 8 Inter se seniority- Continuous officiation doctrine - Cus- toms Appraisers' Service, Class II Recruitment Rules 1961 - C Interpretation of - On the touchstone of the decision in Gaya Baksh Yadav case - Customs Department recruiting Apprais- ers - Two sources of recruitment; by promotion and by direct recruitment - Dispute in regard to inter-se seniority between promotees and direct recruits - Held: Whereas all appoint- D ments in the direct recruitment quota being regular in nature, their seniority was to be counted from date of their appoint- ment, but so far as promotees who had been promoted on ad hoc basis are concerned, they could not, in terms of the Rules, rank senior to the direct recruits - Department of Revenue E (Customs Appraisers) Recruitment Rules, 1988. The Customs Department recruits Appraisers. There were two sources of recruitment; one by way of promo- tion and, the second by direct recruitment. Dispute arose in regard to inter-se seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits. F Appellant is the Custom Appraisers Officers Asso- ciation representing promotee 'Appraisers'. It was con- tended on its behalf, i) that in terms of the Customs Ap- G praisers' Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, the promotees could be appointed upto 50o/ci of the total cadre strength and their seniority in terms of the Gaya Baksh 475 H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R. A Yadav case, was required to be determined on the basis of the doctrine of continuous officiation and not other- wise; ii) that Gaya Baksh Yadav having clearly interpreted the 1961 Rules and having laid down the law that quota and rota rule would not apply and only the principles of B continuous officiation would, no seniority list could have been published in contravention thereof; iii) that the im- pugned seniority list should have been issued directly in .... ,. terms of the 1961 Rules as the same did not contemplate any year-wise seniority list; iv) that the seniority list clearly c showed that whereas the names of persons stated in Serial No. 1 to 72 were mentioned in terms of the 1961 Rules, from Serial No. 73 onwards they have been pre- pared on year-wise basis which is not postulated under the 1961 Rules and v) that 171 persons whose names D appeared in the said list and who had been officiating in the said posts on the basis of the orders of promotion issued pursuant to the recommendations made by the DPC, could not have been excluded therefrom. Respondent-Union of India, on the other hand, sub- E mitted that a bare perusal of the 1961 Rules clearly showed that it was for the Central Board of Revenue to fix the num- ber of vacancies on a yearly wise basis keeping in view the exigencies of work and as from 1961 onwards the percentage of the direct recruits had gone up substan- .. F tially, promotion of any person, except the cases of filling ' up of the permanent vacancies granted in an ad hoc man- ner, could not have been considered for the purpose of reckoning of the seniority. Interpretation of the said 1961 Rules on the touch- G stone of the decision in Gaya Baksh Yadav case is thus in question in the present appeals. '( Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. In terms of the Customs Appraisers' Ser- H vice, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, separate quotas CHENNAI CUSTOMS APPRAISING OFFICERS ASSN. 477 v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. for different categories of employees have not been fixed. A If there is to be no 'quota', the principles of'rota' will have no application. Rule 4 of the 1961 Rules empowered the Central Board of Revenue to determine the method of re- cruitment to be employed. Appointment was to be made for the purpose of-filling up of vacancies in the services. B It will depend upon the requirements for any particular period. The number of candidates required to be ap- pointed by applying the methods envisaged under Rule 3 of the 1961 Rules is again a matter which was within the domain of the Board. Otherwise unguided jurisdiction of c the Board, however, was sought to be controlled by clause (c) of Rule 4 providing that the percentage of posts to be filled by direct recruitment shall not be less than 50 per cent of the total cadre of appraisers.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.