http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       22/11/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, K, VENKATASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Venkataswami               Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik      Yogeshwar Prasad,  P.P. Malhotra, K. Madhaya Reddy, Sr. Advs., (K.T.  Anantharaman) Adv.  for  Khaitan  &  Co.,  ms. Rachna Gupta,  P.K. Bajaj,  (R. Vasudevan)  Adv. (NP),  A.K. Srivastava,  P.   Parmeshwaran,   V.J.   Francis,   Ms.   C. Ramamurthy, L.R.  Singh, Ms.  Anu Mohla,  K.K.  Mohan,  S.K. Mehta, Probir  Mitra, M.A.  Krishnamoorthy, V. Balachandran, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:      The Group  ‘B’ posts  in the  feeder-cadres (a) and (b) above  (i.e.   Superintendents   of   Central   Excise   and Superintendents of  Customs (P)  are filed  100 per  cent by promotion. Those in the feeder-cadre (c) above (i.e. Customs Appraisers) are  filled 50  per cent  by direct  recruitment consisting of  (c)(i) above  and 50  per cent  by  promotion consisting of (c)(ii) above.      Prior to  the coming  into force  of  the  1987  Rules, promotions to Group ‘A’ posts were given on the basis of the respective cadre  strength of feeder categories. This manner of filling  up the  vacancies was  challenged by  a group of officers by  filing Writ  Petition (Civil) Nos.4532-33/78 in this Court.  Inter alia  in the  said  Writ  Petitions,  the petitioner challenged  promotions of  174 Superintendents of Central   Excise   and   10   Superintendents   of   Customs (Preventive) on  the basis of panel prepared by the DPC held in 1978.  One of  the main  contentions raised in those Writ Petitions was  that for  promotion to Group ‘A’ Service, all eligible  officers  belonging  to  three  Group  ‘B’  feeder categories should  be arranged  in one  common consideration list based  on their  continued length  of  service  in  ‘B’ Group. It  may be  noted that when those Writ Petitions were pending,  statutory   rules  were   under-contemplation  and factually were  not there.  This Court  gave  directions  in those writ petitions fixing a time for framing the statutory rules. When this Court was informed about the framing of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

rules, those  writ petitions  were disposed  of on 23.9.1987 observing ‘the  promotions now  in  dispute,  will  also  be looked into  with reference  to the Rules and re-disposed of in accordance with law‘.      The  petitioners   in  W.P.(C)   No.306  of  1988  were aggrieved by  Rule 18  and hence  they have  challenged that Rule. Rule 18 is set out below:-      "18. Appointment  by  promotion  to      Grade VI of service:-      (1) Appointment to the vacancies in      Grade VI of the Service required to      be filed  by promotion  under  sub-      rule 2(ii)  of rules  5 shall be by      promotion    of    the    following      categories of Group ‘B’ officers in      the  Central  Excise,  Customs  and      Narcotics   department   who   have      completed   three   years   regular      service in the Group ‘B’ posts of -      a)   superintendents   of   Central      Excise  in   the  Central   Excise.      Department   and   District   Opium      Officer of Intelligence Officers of      Superintendents (Executive)  in the      Narcotics Department.      b) Appraisers  of  Customs  in  the      Customs Department.      c)   Superintendents   of   Customs      (Preventive)   in    the    Customs      Department.      (2) (a)  The vacancies to be filled      by promotion  shall  be  filled  in      accordance    with    the    common      seniority list  of the  three Group      ‘B’  categories   of  the  Officers      mentioned in sub-rule (1) above.      (b) The  seniority of  the officers      in Group  ‘B’ feeder  categories of      service   for    eligibility    for      promotion to  Group  ‘A’  shall  be      determined on  the basis  of  their      regular length  of service in their      respective  group  ‘B’  categories,      subject to  the condition  that the      inter se  seniority in  each feeder      category    service     shall    be      maintained.      (3) (a) The promotion shall be made      on the  principle of  selection  on      merit basis.      (b)   The   Commission   shall   be      consulted for  making promotions to      Grade VI.      The arrevance  of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.306 and 1200/83 is  that having  regard to  their cadre strength and the time  taken by  them to reach Group ‘B’ status, they may not get their due share if Rule 18(2) is allowed to Hold and field.      The petitioners  in W.P.(C)  Nos.4532-33/78, moved this court again  by filing  application  for  contempt  for  not complying with  the order  of this  Court in not preparing a seniority  list  within  the  stipulated  time.  This  Court extended the time and thereafter a common seniority list was prepared. Challenging  that, W.P.(C)  No.1200/83 came  to be filed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

    Thereafter,  certain   directions  were  given  pending disposal of these writ petitions. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1093/90 felt that unless they move this court and project their point  of view,  their interests  may be  jeopardised. Hence they have filed W.P.(C) No.1093/90.      We have  heard counsel  on both  sides. The question of determination of  seniority of  Group ‘B’  Officers  of  the different feeder  cadres in  their quota of promotion to the entry grade  of Assistant Collector/Senior Superintendent in the Indian  Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ has been the  subject matter  of dispute  for quite sometime. As noticed above,  apart from  moving this  Court, a  number of cases were  pending before  various High  Courts and Central Administrative Tribunals.  Fortunately, one  aspect  of  the dispute was  given a  quietous by  this Court  recently by a judgment dated  8.5.1996 in  Gaya Baksh  Yadav vs.  Union of India and  Others (JT  (1996) 5  SC 118). That was a dispute between  directly   recruited  Appraisers   of  Customs  and promotees belonging to that category.      Generally speaking, the cause for all these litigations appears  to   be  that  an  impression  has  gained  ground, unfortunately, both  among the  Customs Officers and Central Excise Officers  of the  feeder cadre that the other side is encroaching upon  its legitimate  chances  of  promotion  to Group ‘A’  posts. In other words, a feeling has come to stay that the  other side  is trying to benefit at its cost. This feeling,  in   the  absence  of  statutory  rules,  has  got complicated on  account of  the claims and counter-claims on both sides and also on account of its having been unresolved for quite a number of years. In this background unless there exists a spirit of accommodation and goodwill on the part of all concerned  coupled with  a sense  of appreciation of the other party’s  point of  view  a  solution  to  satisfactory settlement of disputes may not be possible.      It is  obvious that  these matters  are pending in this Court since  1988. When  we heard  the matter  on  the  last occasion, learned  counsel appearing  for the Union of India placed before  us a  communication from  the  Government  of India, Ministry  of Finance,  Department  of  Revenue  dated 8.6.1989  addressed  to  the  first  petitioner  in  W.P.(C) No.306/88 in his capacity as Secretary to the Federation and copies were marked to other similar Federations/Associations of concerned officers. Enclosed with the said communication, we find certain proposals for resolving the disputes pending for a  long time  suggested by the Central Board or Revenue. While finalising  the proposal, they have taken into account various aspects  including the long pendency of the cases at various  levels.   The  proposal,   according  to  them,  is equitable and  fair and it takes care of legitimate interest of officers of all the three feeder categories.      We  have  gone  through  the  above-mentioned  proposal carefully and  applied our  mind and  we find  that the said proposal is  fair, just  and  equitable  in  the  facts  and circumstances of  the case.  We also  find that well-founded reasons are  given for  the ultimate  solution given  in the proposal.  In   order  to   further  justify/strengthen  the proposal and the ultimate ratio suggested, we make the chart given at  the time of hearing by the learned counsel for the petitioners in  W.P. (C)  No.306/88 as  an annexure  to this judgment. A  look at the chart will give a panoramic view of both the  streams and  would help  for easy understanding of the issues.  None of  the learned  counsel appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C) No.306/88 pointed out any mistake in the chart. We, therefor, accept the said proposal.      It is  seen from  the communication dated 8.6.1989 that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

the  proposal   was  forwarded  to  Federations/Associations concerned in  order to  enable them to arrive at a consensus and on  arriving at such a consensus to report to this Court for disposal  of these matters on that basis. Unfortunately, even after  lapse of  seven years,  the  parties  could  not arrive at  a consensus  and consequently, we have to step in to settle  the issue.  We may  also point  out that when the learned counsel  for the  Union of  India  handed  over  the proposal, none  of the  counsel appearing  for  the  parties seriously objected to the terms of the proposal.      The relevant portions of the proposal are set out below :-      "2.2 The  seniority list of each of      the  above  three  feder-cadres  is      local and  is  maintained  by  each      Collectorate/Custom House-wise. The      All-India lists  of the  first  two      feeder cadres  are prepared  on the      basis  of   continuous  length   of      regular  service   in  the   grade,      subject to  maintenance of inter se      seniority of  each local cadre. The      inter se ranking in the 3rd feeder-      cadre (that is, Customs Appraisers)      was as  per the  General principles      of determining seniority of various      categories of  persons employed  in      Central Service (generally known as      quota-rota  principles)  stipulated      in the  Ministry  of  Home  Affairs      O.M.      No.9/11/55-RPS      dated      22.12.1959 (which  were modified by      the  Department  of  Personnel  and      Training    O.M.     No.35014/2/80-      Estt.(D) dated  7.9.1986) prior  to      the framing  of the  Indian Customs      and Central  Excise Service Group A      Rules,  1987,  in  these  Rules  of      1987. It  has  been  provided  vide      sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 that -      (a) The  vacancies to  be filled by      promotion  shall   be   filled   in      accordance    with    the    common      seniority list  of the  three Group      ‘B’  categories   of  the  officers      mentioned in sub-rule (1) above.      (b) The  seniority of  the officers      in Group  ‘B’ feeder  categories of      service   for    eligibility    for      promotion to  Group  ‘A’  shall  be      determined on  the basis  of  their      regular length  of service in their      respective  Group  ‘B’  categories,      subject to  the condition  that the      inter se  seniority in  each feeder      category  of   service   shall   be      maintained.      3.1 The question of determining the      seniority of the Group ‘B’ Officers      of the  different feeder-cadres  in      the  quota  for  promotion  to  the      grade of Assistant Collector/Senior      Superintendent Group  ‘A’ has  been      the subject  matter of dispute in a      number   of    cases,   and   thus,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

    unfortunately, remained  unresolved      so far.  There have been claims and      counter-claims by  the officers  of      the different  feeder-cadres.  Even      at present,  this  dispute  is  the      subject matter  of a number of writ      petitions, inter  alia  before  the      Hon,ble Supreme Court.      3.2 Careful  thought has once again      been given  to find  a just  a fair      solution with  a view  to resolving      this   long   outstanding   dispute      taking into  account the reasonable      prospects of  promotion of officers      of different  feeder-cadres. it  is      expected and  hoped that, given the      goodwill and  a sense  of reason on      the  part   of  all  the  concerned      parties, it  should be  possible to      find a  solution which  is just and      fair to  find a  solution from both      the streams  - namely  Customs  and      Central Excise.      4. With  this object  in view,  the      Board  have   taken  stock  of  the      nature of  Group  ‘A’  entry  grade      posts                       (Senior      Superintendents/Assistant      Collectors) which  are the  subject      matter   of   dispute.   For   this      purpose, the  total number of posts      in the  entry grade  of  Group  ‘A’      Service have  been divided  as  (i)      Central  Excise   posts  and   (ii)      Customs  posts,  on  the  basis  of      functions  which   each   post   is      required to perform. Posts required      to perform  wholly or predominantly      functions under  the Central Excise      posts. Similarly  posts required to      perform  wholly   or  predominantly      functions  under  the  Customs  Act      have been treated as Customs posts.      The ratio  so arrived  at has  been      applied  for  dividing  the  common      posts  in   the  Directorates   and      CEGAT. This  calculation gives  the      ratio of  65:36 as  between Central      Excise and Customs posts. Since the      posts  and   persons  manning  them      cannot be  divided into  fractions,      the figures  have been  rounded  to      67:33 so  as to  give the  workable      ratio of 2:1.      5.1  The   proposal  is   that  the      promotee  quota  vacancies  in  the      Group   ‘A’    grade   of    Senior      Superintendent/Assistant  Collector      may be  filled from  Central Excise      and Customs  Group ‘B’  Officers in      the ratio  of 2:1,  the  number  of      vacancies falling  to the  share of      Customs Group  ‘B’  Officers  being      further apportioned between the two      feeder cadres  of customs - namely,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

    Customs  Appraisers   and   Customs      (Preventive) Superintendents in the      ratio    of     their    respective      sanctioned strength (which, rounded      off to  workable  ratio,  comes  to      2:1).      5.2 The  need to further sub-divide      the  number  of  vacancies  in  the      share  of  the  Customs  Group  ‘B’      Officers   between    the   Customs      Appraisers    and    Customs    (P)      Superintendents arises because: (a)      the two  feeder cadres  of  Customs      Appraiser    and     Customs    (P)      Superintendents are  different  and      separate, (b) their seniority lists      are    separate,     (c)    whereas      recruitment    to    Customs    (P)      Superintendents’ Grade  is 100%  by      promotion, in  the case  of Customs      Appraisers,  it   is   50%   direct      recruitment and  50% by  promotion,      and (d)  in terms  of  the  General      Principles governing  determination      of  seniority   laid  down  by  the      M.H.A./DOP&T, where  there are more      than one  feeder cadres,  the inter      se seniority  of each  feeder cadre      is required  to be maintained while      preparing the seniority list in the      higher grade  to  which  promotions      are to  be made,  which is also the      promotion in  the 1987  Recruitment      Rules of IC & CES Group ‘A’.      6.1  It  is  noticed  that  Central      Excise Group ‘B’ officers get their      promotion to Group ‘B’ after having      put in,  by and  large,  very  long      years of  service in Group ‘C’ and,      consequently,  they   are  of  much      older  age-group   as  compared  to      Customs   Appraisers.    Therefore,      placing  the   Superintendents   of      Central Excise  first  and  placing      Customs officers thereafter, in the      promotion panel  would not  present      any   material    disadvantage   to      Customs Officers.  The age-group of      Superintendents of  Central  Excise      is, by  and large,  such that  they      would retire  before their turn for      next  promotion  to  the  grade  of      Deputy Collector  comes. As of now,      there   is    hardly   any   Deputy      Collector   of    Central    Excise      anywhere in  India who is a promote      from  Group   ‘B’  in  the  Central      Excise;  Central   Excise  officers      would generally retire as Assistant      Collectors, thereby  increasing the      chances of Officers of younger age-      group from  the Customs  stream for      their next  promotion to  the grade      of Deputy Collector.      6.2 By  and large, similar position

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

    would  be  there  in  the  case  of      Customs (P)  Superintendents vis-a-      vis   Directed    recruit   Customs      Appraisers. Therefore, a reasonable      placement in the combined all-India      seniority  list   way  be   in  the      following order :-      i)   Superintendents   of   Central      Excise, Group ‘B’      ii) Superintendents  of Customs (P)      Group ‘B’      iii) Customs Appraisers.      6.3 To  sum up,  according  to  the      above  formula,  each  bunch  of  9      vacancies in  the  promotion  quota      for Group ‘B’ feeder-cadres will be      apportioned  in   the  ratio  6:1:2      consisting   of    Central   Excise      Superintendents,    Customs     (P)      Superintendents     and     Customs      Appraisers     respectively.     To      illustrate, if  9  vacancies  exist      for the promotee quota in Group ‘A’      entry   point,    the   first   six      vacancies     would      go      to      Superintendents of  Central Excise,      the seventh  vacancy to Customs (P)      Superintendent and  the eighth  and      ninth   to    Appraisers;   further      vacancies to  be filled  up on  the      basis  of  a  cycle  in  the  above      order.      7.  For   the  purpose   of  making      promotions to  Group  ‘A’  separate      consideration       lists        of      Superintendents of  Central  Excise      on the  one  hand,  and  Appraisers      (both    direct     recruits    and      promotees)      and      Preventive      Superintendents of  Customs on  the      other hand, would be drawn up first      on all-India basis. While Group ‘B’      officers of the two feeder-cadres -      namely, Superintendents  of Central      Excise   and   Superintendents   of      Customs (P)  -  may  be  placed  in      their   respective    consideration      lists  on   the  basis   of   their      continuous  length  of  service  in      Group ‘B’,  the Group  ‘B’ officers      of the  feeder-cadre of  Appraisers      may be  placed in their list on the      basis of  the principles  laid down      from   time    to   time   in   the      instructions      of      MHA/DOP&T      applicable  to   all  the  Services      under   the    Union   of    India,      circulated   on    22.12.1959   and      7.2.1986"      So far  as inter  se seniority  between direct  recruit Appraisers  and  promotees  is  concerned,  that  should  be finalised in  the light  of judgment  of this  Court in Gaya Baksh Yadav’s  case (supra). To that extent, last portion in para 7  (underlined portion)  in the  above proposal  stands modified.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

    As stated  above,  we  find  that  the  above  modified proposal is  just, fair  and equitable  and  accordingly  we direct the Union of India to amend the impugned Rules so far as Group  ‘A’ Service  is concerned. Review all post-1979 ad hoc     promotions     to     the     post     of     Senior Superintendent/Assistant Collector  in the promotee quota in the  light   of  the   present  proposal,   redetermine  the respective  placement   of  the  promotee  officers  in  the combined Group ‘A’ seniority list and regularise accordingly the posts of ad hoc promotions.      In  Group   ‘A’  Service  of  the  Customs  and  Excise Department, 50%  of the  cadre strength are filled by direct recruitment through  Union Public Service Commission and the balance 50%  are filled  through promotion  from  Group  ‘B’ cadres. Group  ‘B’  officers  when  promoted  to  Group  ‘A’ Service, obviously  have no right to occupy more than 50% of their prescribed  quota. It  would, therefore,  be incumbent upon  the   Government  to   re-arrange  or  regularise  the seniority list  in Group  ‘A’ Service  keeping the  inter se quota of the direct recruits and promotees intact and should not allow  either to  get any  promotion in  excess of their quota. The  ad hoc promotions given to Group ‘B’ officers in Group ‘A’ Service, pursuant to interim orders of this Court, would not,  therefore, have  any  effect  or  prejudice  the interests or  rights of  the direct  recruits of  Group  ‘A’ Service  while  re-arranging  the  seniority  in  Group  ‘A’ Service as  indicated in  the judgment. It would, therefore, be of  necessity that the Government should re-arrange their inter-se seniority  and promotions  of the respective direct recruits and  promotees within their quota and consequential promotions  in  further  higher  services.  Their  seniority arranged accordingly.      The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.      In view  of the  disposal of  main Writ  Petitions,  no further  orders   are   necessary   in   the   Interlocutory Applications including  the Contempt Petition and they stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.