One-time relaxation under recruitment rules cannot benefit employees appointed after their notification.

The applicants were working as Tax Assistants in the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). Four applicants were subsequently promoted as Executive Assistants during the pendency of the proceedings.

The 2015 Recruitment Rules for Executive Assistant prescribed promotion of Tax Assistants possessing ten years’ regular service and having passed the departmental examination; 60% of the posts were to be filled by promotion and 40% by direct recruitment.

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), granted a one-time relaxation (OTR) for Tax Assistants who were in position on 28 September 2015, the date of notification of the Recruitment Rules, and who had completed more than six years’ regular service as on 1 January 2022.

Following a Review Departmental Promotion Committee meeting, 93 officers were promoted from Tax Assistant to Executive Assistant by orders dated 9 June 2023.

The applicants contended that private respondents, who had joined as Tax Assistants after 28 September 2015 and had not completed six years’ service by 1 January 2022, had been improperly granted the benefit of both the OTR and the senior-junior clause, thereby exhausting vacancies that ought to have been used for the applicants’ promotion.

1. Whether the private respondents, who were not in position as Tax Assistants on 28 September 2015, were eligible for the one-time relaxation in the qualifying service prescribed for promotion to Executive Assistant

2. Whether CBIC could apply the senior-junior clause to extend the OTR and effectively reduce the qualifying service requirement for Tax Assistants who were themselves ineligible under the OTR

3. Whether the promotion order dated 9 June 2023 was liable to be quashed qua the private respondents and the resultant vacancies directed to be filled by promoting the applicants

The Tribunal applied the 2015 Recruitment Rules for Executive Assistant, which required Tax Assistants to possess ten years’ regular service and prescribed a senior-junior clause permitting consideration of a senior who was short of the qualifying service by not more than half of the prescribed service or two years, whichever was less.

It further applied the DoPT’s one-time relaxation, approved in consultation with the UPSC, which was limited to Tax Assistants who were in position on 28 September 2015 and had completed more than six years’ regular service as on 1 January 2022.

The Tribunal also considered the CBIC clarification dated 15 May 2023 concerning the interaction between the OTR, the senior-junior clause and ICT service.

The Tribunal also referred to the Principal Bench decision in O.A. No. 2342 of 2023, which had questioned the interpretation that permitted an additional two-year relaxation through the senior-junior clause in conjunction with the OTR.

The Tribunal examined the relevant seniority list and found that the private respondents had joined as Tax Assistants on their initial appointment after 28 September 2015.

Since the OTR was expressly confined to Tax Assistants who were in position on the date on which the 2015 Recruitment Rules were notified, the private respondents did not fall within the class for whom the six-year qualifying-service relaxation had been approved.

The Tribunal consequently held that the senior-junior clause could not be used to confer the OTR benefit on persons who were outside the basic eligibility class. Their promotions under the 9 June 2023 order were therefore irregular.

Although the applicants had not furnished particulars of all 93 allegedly ineligible promotees and had impleaded only 23 private respondents, the Tribunal confined its relief to the private respondents before it.

The applicants’ prior service in their parent zones was relevant for determining their eligibility under the OTR, notwithstanding their bottom seniority following ICT transfers.

Their promotions as Executive Assistants under Order No. CCA/19/2023 dated 9 June 2023 were accordingly quashed and set aside qua those private respondents.

The resultant vacancies were directed to be filled by promoting the applicants, subject to their satisfying all other eligibility requirements.

The Miscellaneous Application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.