One-time regularisation does not dispense with examining eligible officers’ claims against unfilled promotional vacancies.

The Applicants, Customs Examiners appointed in 1992 and promoted as Customs Appraisers with effect from 25.11.2002, were eligible for promotion to Assistant Commissioner under the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ Recruitment Rules, 1987. The 1987 Rules prescribed a 50:50 division between direct recruitment and promotion, with the promotion quota distributed among Superintendents of Central Excise, Superintendents of Customs (Preventive) and Customs Appraisers in the ratio of 6:1:2; the 2012 Rules, notified on 13.09.2012, subsequently prescribed a ratio of 13:2:1.

Owing substantially to disputes regarding the seniority of Customs Appraisers, regular promotions were delayed. The Applicants contended that vacancies earmarked for Customs Appraisers in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 remained unfilled, and that the Respondents failed to consider eligible officers against those vacancies.

The Applicants were ultimately granted ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Commissioners with effect from 22.10.2014 and as Deputy Commissioners with effect from 31.03.2020.

A special one-time exercise was later undertaken to regularise serving ad-hoc promotees. The DPC met on 08.11.2021, followed by the Final Combined Seniority List dated 12.02.2022 and rejection of the Applicants’ representations by Board Order dated 07.03.2022.

The Applicants challenged these actions, alleging that the unfilled Customs Appraisers’ quota vacancies had not been properly accounted for and that their non-consideration had prejudiced their seniority and subsequent promotions.

The Respondents maintained that the historical vacancies had consciously not been carried forward because promotees had already occupied posts beyond the prescribed 50% quota, and that the one-time dispensation was limited to regularising existing ad-hoc promotions rather than reopening historical vacancy calculations.

UPSC stated that it had acted on the vacancy position and proposal supplied by the administrative Department and had no independent role in recalculating historical vacancies.

1. Whether the Applicants and other eligible Customs Appraisers were entitled to have their claim for consideration against the alleged unfilled promotion-quota vacancies for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 properly examined by the competent authority?

2. Whether the applicable quota and ratio for each vacancy year, including the 6:1:2 ratio under the 1987 Rules and the 13:2:1 ratio under the 2012 Rules, were correctly applied in determining the vacancies available to Customs Appraisers?

3. Whether the special one-time regularisation exercise and the consequential seniority list legally disposed of the Applicants’ separate claim relating to vacancies allegedly left unfilled?

4. Whether the Applicants were automatically entitled to retrospective promotion, seniority and consequential benefits merely because vacancies allegedly existed?

The Tribunal applied the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group ‘A’ Recruitment Rules, 1987, including the 50:50 direct-recruitment/promotion quota, the 6:1:2 distribution among the feeder cadres, the requirement of promotion by seniority subject to fitness, and the protection against ignoring a senior officer when a junior is considered under Rules 18, 19 and 24.

It also considered the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group ‘A’ Rules, 2012, notified on 13.09.2012, which introduced the 13:2:1 ratio prospectively.

The Tribunal recognised the settled principle that mere existence of a vacancy does not confer an automatic right to retrospective promotion or seniority, and that promotion must follow the applicable rules and prescribed procedure, relying on Union of India v. Indian Railways Civil Engineering Officer Association, Union of India v. K.L. Taneja, Union of India v. Vijender Singh and Sunaina Sharma v. State of Jammu & Kashmir.

It also considered C. Bakhavtachalam v. Union of India, which permits consequential relief where wrongful denial of promotion is established, and Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K, which holds that recruitment rules, quota requirements and prescribed procedures cannot be bypassed through implied or wholesale relaxation.

The Tribunal distinguished between an automatic right to promotion and a right to fair consideration for promotion.

It held that the DPC dated 08.11.2021 was a special exercise for regularising existing ad-hoc promotions and was not a normal year-wise DPC for filling every vacancy that may have arisen during the relevant years.

The Respondents’ reliance on administrative difficulty and historical excess occupation by promotees explained the decision not to carry forward vacancies but did not establish that the specific claim of eligible Customs Appraisers had ever been examined through a reasoned decision.

The Tribunal found that determination of the correct vacancy position, the applicable rules and feeder-cadre ratios, the legality of carrying forward vacancies, the effect of prior litigation, and the Applicants’ eligibility and fitness involved disputed matters requiring initial examination by the competent authority.

Accordingly, it declined to grant retrospective promotion directly, while holding that the Applicants could not be denied consideration merely because the special regularisation exercise had subsequently been completed.

Respondents 1 and 2 were directed to undertake a fresh, specific examination of the alleged left-out or unfilled Customs Appraisers’ quota vacancies for 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, apply the Recruitment Rules and relevant quota ratios, examine whether eligible officers ought to have been considered, and determine whether a Review DPC or other consequential exercise was legally required.

The authority was also directed to examine the Applicants’ seniority and further-promotion claims to the extent dependent on that determination.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the Tribunal’s order; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs.