Op (Cat)/103/2017 Of Arathi Sarah Suni v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax(Hg)(Admn)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2017/13TH CHAITHRA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 103 of 2017 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 IN OA 156/2017 of CENTRALADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER/APPLICANT: ----------------------- ARATHI SARAH SUNIL AGED 22 YEARS, D/O DR. SUNIL K MATHAI, KUNJAN BAWA ROAD, CHETTICHIRA, VYTTILA PO COCHIN-682019 BY ADVS.SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY SRI.JITHIN SAJI ISAAC RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(HQ)(ADMN) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA C.R.BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682018 2. SAJAN PRAKASH WELFARE INSPECTOR, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, BANGALORE-560023 3. THULASI P.C TARANA, VNRA 24, VIKAS NAGAR, PONOOTH SOUTH ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, COCHIN-682020 4. ALLWYN FRANCIS KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KANDANADU, KOLLAMPILLY KOTTAYAM-686001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS-----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.156 OF 2017 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAMEXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNSEL STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONEREXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 156/2017RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITSNIL----------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ========================= O.P.(CAT) No.103 of 2017 =========================Dated this the 3[rd ] day of April, 2017. J U D G M E N T C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. This original petition is directed against the order dated28.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.156/2017. The petitioner hereinwas the applicant therein. She moved the said originalapplication seeking the following reliefs:- “i.Call for the entire records relating to theselection pursuant to Annexure A1 notification and quash theselection list as far as it excludes the applicant; ii. Declare that the applicant is legally eligible forappointment to the post of Inspectors of Income Tax (PB-II),by virtue of her qualifications, participations and achievementsin recognized tournaments and performance in the field trials. iii. Direct the 1[st] respondent to give appointment to theapplicants for the post of Inspectors of Income Tax (PB-II).” 2.On 01.03.2017 the Original Application came up for consideration before the Tribunal and on that day the Tribunalpassed an interim order to maintain status quo with respect tothe appointment pursuant to Annexure A1, in respect of the OP (CAT) No.103/2017 2 post of Inspector of Income Tax. As per Ext.P4 order dated28.03.2017 virtually the Tribunal vacated the said orderrather, declined to extend the order of status quo and made itclear that selection and appointment to the post of Inspectorof Income Tax pursuant to Annexure-A1 would be subject tothe final outcome of O.A.No.156/2017. After passing such anorder vide Ext.P4 order the Tribunal listed the matter to05.04.2017. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that thecaptioned Original Petition was filed. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General ofIndia. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 2 post of Inspector of Income Tax. As per Ext.P4 order dated28.03.2017 virtually the Tribunal vacated the said orderrather, declined to extend the order of status quo and made itclear that selection and appointment to the post of Inspectorof Income Tax pursuant to Annexure-A1 would be subject tothe final outcome of O.A.No.156/2017. After passing such anorder vide Ext.P4 order the Tribunal listed the matter to05.04.2017. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order that thecaptioned Original Petition was filed. 3.We have heard the learned counsel for thepetitioner and also the learned Assistant Solicitor General ofIndia. 4.The main contention of the petitioner is that thefactual foundations which lead to Ext.P4 order is absolutelyincorrect. The learned counsel submitted that a perusal ofparagraph 4 of Ext.P4 would reveal that virtually the Tribunalwas not inclined to extend the order of status quo based onthe submissions made on behalf of the respondents to theeffect that unless the selection and appointment would becompleted by 31.03.2017 it would get lapsed and in sucheventuality the next turn would arise only after ten years. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 3 5.The Tribunal observed that occurrence of such asituation would result in negation of justice to all concerned.The Tribunal further took note of the submissions made onbehalf of the respondents that though the applicant was heldnot eligible to be posted as instructor of income tax, she wasalready selected for appointment to the post of tax assistant inthe Income Tax Department. The Tribunal also took note ofthe submission made by the respondents that one of theselectees, is not likely to join and in such eventuality thepetitioner might get appointment. That apart, a scanning ofimpugned Ext.P4 order would reveal that the Tribunal hadspecifically ordered to make a specific mention in the order ofappointment made pursuant to Annexure A1 to the effect thatsuch appointment would be subject to the final outcome of theabove mentioned Original Application. The question is whenthe Original Application is pending whether an interim order ofthis nature warrants interference. True that when the mattercame up for admission, on 01.03.2017 the Tribunal passed aninterim order to maintain status quo with respect to theappointment pursuant to Annexure 1. 6. It cannot be said that the Tribunal had made an OP (CAT) No.103/2017 4 observation that there is a likelihood of the selection itself getlapsed, if appointments were not made before 31.03.2017. Atthe same time, a perusal of Ext.P2, which is a copy of thepreliminary statement filed by the respondents, would revealthat such a statement was made in paragraph 6, which readsthus:- “6. The entire selection procedure for recruitment ofsports persons for the year 2016-17 has to be completedbefore the end of the current financial year, failing whichthe vacanies under sports quota may get lapsed. Even theapplicant will lose her chance.” 7.A perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that it is a preliminary statement filed on behalf of the officialrespondents. In such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot besaid to have committed a flaw in making a note of such asubmission made on behalf of the respondents while passingthe impugned interim orders. Virtually the Tribunal wanted toavoid a situation where non of the parties would get anappointment pursuant to Annexure A1. It is in the said contestthat the Tribunal observed that such an eventuality asapprehended would cause negation of justice to all. In suchcircumstances, taking the impugned interim order in O.A. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 5 No.156/2017, we are of the view that the Tribunal had passedsuch order only to maintain the balance and also to make thematter live. preliminary statement filed on behalf of the officialrespondents. In such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot besaid to have committed a flaw in making a note of such asubmission made on behalf of the respondents while passingthe impugned interim orders. Virtually the Tribunal wanted toavoid a situation where non of the parties would get anappointment pursuant to Annexure A1. It is in the said contestthat the Tribunal observed that such an eventuality asapprehended would cause negation of justice to all. In suchcircumstances, taking the impugned interim order in O.A. OP (CAT) No.103/2017 5 No.156/2017, we are of the view that the Tribunal had passedsuch order only to maintain the balance and also to make thematter live. 8.On perusing the impugned order, we are of the viewthat it would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner as itwould not defeat his right if ultimately the Tribunal holds thatthe petitioner is entitled to get appointment as Inspector ofIncome tax, pursuant to selection based on Annexure A1. Insuch circumstances, we do not find any reason to interferewith Ext.P4 especially taking note of the fact that the OriginalApplication is pending. We are making it clear that we havenot made any observation on the merits of the matter. At thesame time, we are of the view that, if the petitioner is of theview that the statement in paragraph 4 of impugned Ext.P4 isincorrect, it will be open to the petitioner to move the Tribunalby filing appropriate petitions. The learned counsel for thepetitioner sounded an apprehension that unless there is anorder fixing a time limit for the disposal of the OriginalApplication there is a chance of the matter getting protractedat the instance of the respondents. The Original Application isof the year 2017. There is no reason for us to believe that OP (CAT) No.103/2017 6 even in case the petitioner is able to convince the Tribunalregarding the urgency of the matter it would not be disposedof within a reasonable time. With the said observations, this original petition isdismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR , JUDGE Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE rmm // True copy // P.A. To Judge