A Review DPC lacks authority to determine or alter inter se seniority.

The applicant joined the Income Tax Department as a UDC in Mumbai in 1998 and sought an inter-charge transfer to Bihar. Following departmental restructuring, his post was redesignated as Tax Assistant (TA); he joined the Bihar Region on 26 March 2002.

The seniority list published in 2003 placed him below LDCs and Group-D employees. He contended that he should have ranked below the erstwhile UDCs but above the erstwhile LDCs and Group-D employees.

On 27 November 2020, the then PCCIT approved a proposal to re-fix the applicant’s and another employee’s seniority below the erstwhile UDCs and to convene review DPCs. A Review DPC on 16 June 2021 did not recommend revising the seniority list, and the applicant’s later representations were rejected on 27 October 2023.

The applicant challenged those decisions before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Review DPC’s decision dated 16 June 2021, which did not revise the applicant’s seniority, could stand in light of the PCCIT’s approval dated 27 November 2020.

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s subsequent representations, by order dated 27 October 2023, was sustainable.

The Tribunal considered the CBDT circular dated 14 May 1990 concerning seniority on inter-charge transfer and the CBDT restructuring instruction dated 4 June 2001 concerning the merged TA cadre.

It treated the PCCIT’s approval dated 27 November 2020 as the competent authority’s decision on the applicant’s seniority and observed that a DPC or Review DPC’s function was to consider promotion, not to determine or re-adjudicate seniority.

The Tribunal also relied on the principle of administrative finality, reasoning that the later rejection could not displace the earlier decision approved by the competent authority.

No statute or judicial precedent is identified in the supplied judgment text.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been recruited as a UDC and that, after restructuring and transfer to Bihar, his placement below LDCs and Group-D employees had been questioned by the competent authority itself.

It treated the 27 November 2020 approval as directing his seniority to be re-fixed below the erstwhile UDCs, with consequential review DPCs.

Because the Review DPC considered whether seniority should be revised rather than implementing that direction and considering promotions on the resulting seniority, the Tribunal found the process inconsistent with the PCCIT’s approval and the limited role of a DPC.

It further held that the later rejection order did not cure that defect.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No costs were awarded.