Wp/6999/2004 Of The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P.m. Manohar

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARIANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 6999 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: (Per T. Meena Kumari, J) The Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash the orderspassed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad passed in O.A.No.395 of 2002dated 27.2.2004. Brief facts of the case are: Petitioners herein are the respondents before the tribunal.Respondent herein is the Applicant before the tribunal. For thepurpose of convenience, the parties as arrayed before thetribunal are referred to hereinafter. Respondent herein filedO.A.No. 395 of 2002 before the tribunal seeking to set aside theimpugned proceedings O.M.No. AB-14017/30/89-Estt(RB)dated 10.7.1990 issued by the Department of Personnel andTraining and the consequential letter dated 14.2.1996 ofDirector, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi to the ChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad followed by thememo dated 20.3.2001 of respondent No.2 as illegal and to setaside the same and consequently to declare the action of therespondents in not maintaining the ratio of 1:3 between theStenographers and ministerial cadres of scheduled castecandidate for promotion to the grade of Income-Tax Inspectorsas highly illegal and arbitrary and being contrary to therecruitment rules. The applicant has prayed for a furtherdirection upon the respondents to conduct a review DPC to the DPC held in January, 2000, so as to maintain the ratio of 1:3between the Stenographers and ministerial groups ofScheduled Caste candidates and to consider the case of theapplicant in the review DPC relating to the DPC of January,2000 and to give promotion to the applicatnt as Inspector, withretrospective effect, with all consequential benefits. Respondents filed their counter. After hearing both the partiesand considering the material placed before it, the learnedtribunal has allowed the O.A. with the following directions: “O.A. is allowed. The respondents are directed to correctthe anamoly by rediverting 4 posts to the promotion quotaof Stenographers in the category of schedule caste, bygiving effect to promotions to the rank of Income-TaxInspectors to the 4 Stenographers, which includes theapplicant whose seniority is at no.3, and they shall standpromoted from SC category in the DPC held in January,2000, with all consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to give effect to the aboveorder within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order, by passing appropriateorders and upon such promotion being given to theapplicant in the grade of Income Tax Inspector as per theDPC held in January, 2000 instead of the promotiongiven to him on 22.6.2001, the seniority of the applicantin the gradeof Income Tax Inspectors be refixedaccordingly, extending to him all consequential benefits,and within the prescribed time of one month asmentioned above.” Heard both sides. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for Income TaxDepartment has contended that the above decision of thelearned tribunal is behind and back of the four incumbentswhose posts were directed to be rediverted by the learnedtribunal and those persons were not made as parties in the present Writ Petition. However, the learned counsel for therespondent submits that it will not be effected by the directionsof the tribunal, the tribunal having found there is anomaly and itshould be corrected by rediverting the four posts and also thetribunal should have directed the respondent to make the fourpersons as parties to O.A. Before this Court also, the said fourpersons were not made parties and hence no Order can bepassed behind and back of them rediverting those four postsfrom the promotion quota of Stenographers of Scheduled Caste. present Writ Petition. However, the learned counsel for therespondent submits that it will not be effected by the directionsof the tribunal, the tribunal having found there is anomaly and itshould be corrected by rediverting the four posts and also thetribunal should have directed the respondent to make the fourpersons as parties to O.A. Before this Court also, the said fourpersons were not made parties and hence no Order can bepassed behind and back of them rediverting those four postsfrom the promotion quota of Stenographers of Scheduled Caste. Under the above circumstances as the necessary partiesare required to be added to the O.A., the Order passed by thelearned tribunal would amount to violation of the principles ofnatural justice and hence the judgment of the learned tribunal isliable to be set aside and the mater shall be remanded back tothe learned tribunal for fresh consideration. Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed and the O.A. shall bedisposed of in accordance with law. The learned counsel for therespondent is directed to make four persons, who were directedto be rediverted by the learned tribunal as necessary parties inthe O.A. As and when such persons are made parties, thelearned tribunal shall dispose of the O.A. without beinginfluenced by any of the observations made in this Writ Petition. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowedand remitted back. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J ______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 14.6.2007 CHV