Facts of the Case

The respondents were working as Executive Assistants in the Goods and Services Tax Department. Being aggrieved by the Department’s failure to conduct a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Inspector, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, by filing O.A. No. 753 of 2021.

The respondents sought a direction requiring the Department to conduct the DPC and consider their cases for promotion to the post of Inspector. By order dated 25 February 2022, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application and directed the Department to conduct the DPC from the existing cadre of eligible candidates, including the respondents, in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to the post of Inspector, within three months from receipt of the order.

The Union of India and departmental authorities challenged the Tribunal’s order before the Telangana High Court by filing W.P. No. 39371 of 2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the Tribunal’s order as illegal and contrary to law. The writ petition and its relief are recorded in the judgment itself.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the High Court were:

  1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Department to conduct the DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector within three months.
  2. Whether the pendency of O.A. No. 1714 of 2020 before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, arising from proceedings concerning Tax Assistants and reversion orders, affected the Department’s ability to conduct the DPC.
  3. Whether the Department required additional time to undertake the promotion exercise in view of the Board Circulars dated 1 June 2022 and 6 September 2022 and the exercise stated to be necessary in light of B.S. Murthy vs A. Ravinder Singh & Union of India.
  4. Whether any DPC or consequential promotion exercise should remain subject to the final outcome of O.A. No. 1714 of 2020.
  5. Whether any proposed reversion affecting the respondents could be undertaken without following due procedure and granting them an opportunity of hearing.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The Union of India and the departmental authorities contended that the respondents, who were working as Executive Assistants, had approached the Tribunal because the Department had not conducted a DPC for promotion to the post of Inspector.

The petitioners submitted that certain Tax Assistants who had been promoted subsequent to the respondents and were facing reversion orders had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 659 of 2019. In those proceedings, the Tribunal, by order dated 26 July 2019 in M.A. No. 587 of 2019 in O.A. (S.R.) No. 1456 of 2019, stayed the reversion orders concerning the applicants.

It was further contended that an application under Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act was filed seeking transfer of O.A. No. 659 of 2019 to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi. After transfer, the matter was renumbered as O.A. No. 1714 of 2020, which remained pending, and the earlier stay continued to operate.

According to the petitioners, because of the subsisting stay and pendency of the transferred proceedings, the Department was not in a position to undertake the DPC exercise. They further relied upon Board Circulars dated 1 June 2022 and 6 September 2022, contending that an exercise had to be undertaken in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court referred to in the judgment as B.S. Murthy vs A. Ravinder Singh & Union of India, after which the DPC exercise could be undertaken.

The petitioners therefore sought additional time for conducting the DPC and requested that any DPC conducted be made subject to the outcome of O.A. No. 1714 of 2020 pending before the Principal Bench, CAT, New Delhi. These submissions are specifically recorded in the judgment.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents contended that more than nine months had already elapsed from the date of the Tribunal’s order in O.A. No. 753 of 2021, yet the Department had not undertaken the DPC exercise.

They submitted that if a reasonable period were granted to the petitioners to conduct the DPC pursuant to the Tribunal’s order, the matter could be considered in accordance with law.

Thus, the respondents essentially pressed for implementation of the Tribunal’s direction without further undue delay.

Court Order / Findings

After considering the rival submissions, the Telangana High Court held that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the petitioners to conduct the DPC in tune with the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 753 of 2021 within a reasonable period.

The High Court accordingly directed that the DPC be conducted preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the High Court’s order.

Significantly, the High Court did not quash the Tribunal’s substantive direction requiring conduct of the DPC. Instead, it effectively granted a reasonable extended period for compliance while protecting the Department against the consequences of the pending connected proceedings.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and all pending miscellaneous applications were ordered to stand closed.

Important Clarification

The High Court expressly clarified that:

1. DPC subject to pending proceedings:
Any DPC or other exercise likely to be conducted by the Department would remain subject to the outcome of O.A. No. 1714 of 2020 pending before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.

2. Procedural safeguards before reversion:
If the Department proposed to take any action concerning the reversion of the respondents, it was required to:

  • follow the prescribed procedure;
  • provide an opportunity to the respondents; and
  • thereafter pass appropriate orders.

This clarification is important because the Court simultaneously permitted the promotion process to move forward and preserved the legal effect of the pending CAT proceedings, while also safeguarding affected employees against reversion without due procedure.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — The writ petition was instituted under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Section 24 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 — Referred to in connection with the transfer of O.A. No. 659 of 2019 to the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, where it was renumbered as O.A. No. 1714 of 2020.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Invoked in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking suspension of operation of the Tribunal’s order dated 25 February 2022 pending disposal of the writ petition.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783327407_1269compressed.pdf

Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.