Sh.

Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

Central Administrative Tribunal

Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA-2531/2014
MA-214/2015

Reserved on : 17.07.2015.

Pronounced on : 23.07.2015.

Hon ble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)

Hon ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)

1. Sh. Subodh Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 33 years,
S/o late Sh. Keshari Singh,
R/o H.No.D-335, Krishna Park,
Deoli Road, New Delhi-62.

2. Sh. Ajay Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 29 years,
S/o Sh. Rajender Kumar,
R/o Flat No. 434, Income Tax Colony,
3rd Floor, Pitampura,
New Delhi-88.

3. Sh. Bijender Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 36 years,
S/o Sh. Khem Chand,
R/o H.No.151, Village Aali,
Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-76.

4. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 30 years,
S/o late Sh. Tej Pal Singh,
R/o RZ-D-3/8, Vinod Puri,
Vijay Enclave, PO-Palam,
New Delhi-45.

5. Sh. Dharmender, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Pal Singh,
R/o D-16/181, Sec-7, Rohini,
Delhi-85.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 1

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

6. Sh. Jitender Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 39 years,
S/o Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o Flat No.283, Income Tax Colony,
3rd Floor, Pitampura,
New Delhi-88.

7. Sh. Sunil Kumar, Tax Assistant,

Aged about 29 years,
S/o late Sh. Mam Chand,
R/o 228, Mata Colony,
Sec-12, Vijay Nagar,
Ghaziabad,UP. . Applicants

(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate)

Versus

Union of India & Ors.

1. The Secretary (Revenue)

Ministry of Finance,
North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Chairperson,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi.

3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of

Income Tax, (CCA), Delhi,
CR Building, New Delhi. . Respondents

(through Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate)

O R D E R

Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The applicants were appointed as Tax Assistants in different
zones in the year 2007-2008. After rendering three years of regular service they became eligible for
promotion as STA as well as Income Tax Inspector subject to passing of the departmental
examination. All the applicants passed the relevant exam in January and December, 2011.
Applicants No. 5 & 7 passed the same in December, 2012 and December, 2013. Meanwhile, on their
own request, they were also allowed inter-zonal transfer to Delhi region. The chart below depicts the
different dates of joining service of the applicants as well as their dates of transfer to Delhi region:-

Applicant Name Date of Appointment/Joining Region Date of Joining on transfer Subodh Kumar
11.01.2008 Mumbai 11.10.2013 Ajay Kumar 07.02.2008 Bangalore 30.09.2013 Bijender Kumar
08.01.2008 Mumbai 11.10.2013 Ankit Kumar 28.02.2008 Mumbai 07.10.2013 Dharmender
03.04.2008 Mumbai 07.10.2013 Jitender Kumar 31.12.2007 Mumbai 18.10.2013 Sunil Kumar

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 2

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

12.02.2008 Mumbai 11.10.2013

2. The grievance of the applicants is that they had all become eligible for promotion to the post of
Inspector, Income Tax having completed three years of regular service as well as passing the
departmental exam. However, the respondents did not consider them for the same. In the year 2013,
as a result of cadre restructuring, nearly 1000 vacancies of Income Tax Inspectors became available.
The applicants were also covered within the zone of consideration against the aforesaid vacancies.
However, they were denied consideration for promotion on the ground that they did not have three
years of service in Delhi region. The respondents promoted some of the eligible persons vide their
order dated 23.05.2014 as Inspectors. This list contained names of some of the juniors of the
applicants also. Aggrieved by the same, the applicants submitted a representation to the
respondents for considering their claim. On 27.05.2014, the respondents issued another circular
containing instructions for conducting DPCs for the vacancy year 2013-2014. In Para-5 of the same,
the following was prescribed:-

It is further clarified that as per the existing DoPT and CBDT instructions on inter-Region transfer
for the purpose of reckoning prescribed years regular service in the grade, the service rendered by
an inter-region transferee in the old region shall not be counted in the new region which he has
joined on such transfer, if the transfer is on the request of the officer concerned. 2.1 Thus, it
became clear that the respondents did not intend to count the service rendered by the applicants in
their previous zones for the purpose of computing their eligibility for promotion. Hence, they have
filed this O.A. before us seeking the following relief:-

(i) To declare the action of respondents in not counting past regular service as Tax Assistant/Sr. TA
in the old region for determining eligibility for promotion to the post of Income Tax Inspector as
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

(ii) To direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicants to the post of Inspectors
Income Tax by counting their past service rendered in the old region as Tax Assistant/Sr. TA with all
consequential benefits from due date.

(iii) To set aside the letter dated 27.05.2014 to the extend it provide for ignoring past service of
applicants rendered in the old region for promotion.

(iv) To allow the OA with exemplary costs on the respondents.

(v) Any other or further relief which the Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

3. The contention of the applicants is that in a catena of judgments, it has been laid down by
Hon ble Supreme Court as well as this Tribunal that on inter-zonal transfer on his own request, a
person forgoes his seniority willingly and agrees to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list on
the date of his joining in the new region. However, his past service cannot be forfeited and should
count for determining his eligibility for next promotion. The applicants have relied on the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 3

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. C.N. Ponnappan, 1996(10)SCC
524 as well as in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Deo Narain & Ors., 2008(10)SCC 84. Learned counsel
for the applicants submitted that this case is also squarely covered by the judgment of this Bench of
the Tribunal in OA-2064/2014 (Chet Ram Meena & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) dated 15.10.2014 , the
operative part of which reads as follows:-

. We have heard both sides and perused the material on record. We have seen the judgments
relied upon by the applicants. In the case of Scientific Advisor to Raksha Mantri (supra), the Honble
Supreme Court has laid down as under:-

where an employee transferred from one unit to another on compassionate ground and is placed at
the bottom of the seniority list, the service rendered by him at the earlier place from where, he has
been transferred being regular service has to be counted towards experience and eligibility for
promotion. They have also relied on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and others vs. Dev Narayan and others, 153 (2008) Delhi Law Times 582 (SC). The
applicants have further relied upon the judgment of Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in OA
389/2013 (supra) in which the following has been observed:-

™0. For the forgoing reasons, we have no hesitation to hold that applicants eligibility for promotion
to the cadre of Sr. Tax Assistant/Inspector cannot be counted from their posting at N.E. Region. The
regular service rendered by them on their initial appointment shall have to be reckoned for
determining the eligibility. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to reckon the regular period of
service rendered by the applicants from their initial appointments outside N.E. Region till the date
of original DPC(s) for fulfilling the qualifying service of three years for their promotion to next
higher grades. Upon reckoning such period, the respondents are further directed to hold review DPC
as well as DPC, as the case may be, and consider the case of the applicants for promotion to the
cadre of Sr. Tax Assistant/Income Tax Officer, from the dates when it was due, along with all
consequential benefits subject to their passing of departmental examination or otherwise qualified.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than a period of
three months from the date of the receipt of this order.

6. On perusal of the above judgment, we are convinced that the settled position is that on inter-zonal
transfers on their own requests while the employees accept bottom seniority they do not forgo the
earlier service rendered by them before such transfer. Such service should, therefore, be counted
while considering their cases for promotion provided they are falling within the zone of
consideration as per their position in the seniority list. Therefore, sub clause (2) of Note-I of Clause
2 of Notification dated 24.3.2005 is contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in
the aforementioned cases and deserves to be quashed.

7. We also find that the stand taken by the respondents is not very relevant to the issue in this case.
This Court neither intends to interfere in the functioning of the executive nor issue any direction nor
sermons to them. The contention of the respondents that no cause of action has accrued to the
applicants is also untenable since the applicants have been deprived of promotion which was
legitimately due to them. Further the contention of the respondents that this OA is bad on account

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 4

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

of non-joinder of necessary parties also untenable since the applicants have very clearly stated that
the posts meant for Scheduled Tribe category have been left unfilled by the respondents. Thus, even
if the relief asked for by the applicants is granted to them, no person is likely to be adversely
affected.

8. We, therefore, allow this OA and quash and set aside the impugned sub clause (2) of Note-I of
Clause 2 of Notification dated 24.3.2005 and para 5 of the Circular dated 27.5.2014. We also direct
the respondents to conduct a review of DPC held on 25.5.2014 and consider the applicants for
promotion provided they are otherwise eligible. In case they are found fit, they will be so promoted
from the due date and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of pay fixation and seniority.
We further direct that future DPCs shall also be held in accordance with the observations made
above. These benefits shall be extended to the applicants within six weeks of receiving of a certified
copy of this order. No costs. 3.1 On the same issue they have also relied on the judgment of
Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Panwar
& Anr., (Civil Writ Petition No. 5148/2013) dated 26.05.2015. The relevant paras of the said order
read as under:-

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Circular dated 14.5.1990 which is annexed as
Annex. 9 with the writ petition to contend that on a transfer, the transferee will forfeit all claims for
Promotion/confirmation and that his seniority in the cadre after transfer will start from the date
such persons reports on duty in that charge. However, the service in the old charge will not be
counted in the new charge for the purpose of seniority. Relying upon the said circular, the counsel
for the petitioner has argued that since the respondent had only joined on 4.10.2010, he would not
have completed three years in the grade to have qualified for consideration for promotion by the
D.P.C. which was held on 29.6.2011. This argument is devoid of any merit. A reading and perusal of
Annex.9 dated 14.5.2990 shows that a person on his transfer would not be entitled to maintain his
seniority from the old charge and that he would be placed at the bottom of the list. A further reading
of the said circular shows that on a transfer, the transferee will forfeit all claims for
promotion/confirmation in the old charge. However, the said circular does not stipulate that on a
transfer, the transferee would lose his length of service as well. As in the present case, the
respondent herein lost his seniority, he would not lose the length of service and the length of service
would be counted from the date of initial appointment. The argument raised by the petitioner that
the applicant had not rendered service three years continuous service on the post of Tax Assistant in
Rajasthan Region, is wholly fallacious and is hereby rejected. It has to be kept in mind that there is
no discontinuation of service of the respondent as a Tax Assistant. There is only a change in the
Division. The recruitment rules do not bar the applicant-respondent from promotion and the
regular service of the applicant is to be counted from the date of initial appointment, i.e. 24.10.2007.
Keeping that in mind, the respondent-applicant had completed a period of three years of service to
be considered for promotion as Senior Tax Assistant.

9. There is no infirmity in the reasonings given in the judgment rendered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. Hence the writ petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no
order as to costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 5

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that the applicants were given inter charge transfer on
compassionate ground on the condition that they will be placed at the bottom of the list of
employees in the concerned cadre in the new charge. The junior most employees in the new charge
are new recruits. Therefore, these applicants are junior to the new recruits for the purpose of
seniority. The new recruits are required to, inter alia, render three years of service in the same grade
and in the same charge before they can be considered for promotion. Since the applicants are junior
to the new recruits, they cannot be considered for promotion until the case of new recruits fall
within the zone of consideration after they have rendered three years of continuous service as
aforesaid. If the O.A. is allowed, these applicants would become senior qua the new recruits who
have not yet completed three years of service. This would be in direct contravention of the condition
of inter charge transfer on compassionate ground and would entail gross prejudice to the rights and
entitlement of the new recruits.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has also given his written arguments wherein he has
submitted that the applicants were not available in Delhi charge on or before 31.03.2013. Thus, they
cannot be considered for vacancies arising in the vacancy year 2013-2014 as laid down in O.M. No.
22011/3/98-Estt.(D) dated 14.08.2003 of DoP&T. Learned counsel also submitted that this O.M.
has the effect of rule as laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of E. Venkateswara Rao
Naidu Vs. UOI, AIR 1973 SC 698. For the vacancy year 2014-2015 also the respondent No.2 (CBDT)
by their order dated 02.12.2014 reiterated the instructions in Para-5 of the impugned letter dated
27.05.2014. Hence, respondent No.3 could not have considered the applicants for promotion. He
further submitted that CBDT Instructions dated 14.05.1990 impose a condition that an inter-charge
transferee on compassionate ground, would suffer loss of seniority and would be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list of the employees of the concerned cadre in the new charge. Further, the
CBDT Instructions dated 27.05.2014 and 02.12.2014 provide that the service rendered by the
inter-charge transferee would not be considered in the new charge. Learned counsel submitted that
both sets of CBDT Instructions are pari materia in nature as both of them have been made pursuant
to the powers of CBDT to specify the instructions for regulating the inter-charge transfer.

5.1 Learned counsel has also stated that the Recruitment Rules prescribed three years qualifying
service for promotion to the rank of Inspector. These provisions of Recruitment Rules are applicable
as per the cadre. There is a cadre of Tax Assistants in each establishment/unit, which is called the
Ministerial cadre. The said cadre is establishment specific. Therefore, for consideration for
promotion, the qualifying service has to be rendered in that very charge.

5.2 Learned counsel has further stated that in the case of Sant Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967
SC 1910 Hon ble Supreme Court has stated that while the Government cannot amend or supersede
statutory rules by administrative instructions, yet if the rules are silent on any particular point
Government can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent
with the rules already framed.

5.3 Learned counsel also submitted that the Apex Court judgments in the cases of C.N. Ponnappan
(supra) and Deo Narain (supra) relied upon by the applicants would not help them as in none of
these cases did the Hon ble Supreme Court consider the executive instructions of the nature

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 6

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

involved in the present case. In C.N. Ponnapan s case the Apex Court did not advance any
interpretation of any executive instructions of the nature involved in the present case. Further, he
submitted that in the case of Punjab University Vs. Devjani Chakrabarti and Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1444,
the Apex Court ruled as follows:-

ž .In that case one Subhash Chander was admitted to the integrated M.B.B.S course in the Daya
Nand Medical College, Ludhiana in the year 1965. At the time of his admission, under Regulation 25
read with r. 7.1, a student who fails in one subject/paper was entitled to grace marks at 1 per cent of
the total aggregate marks of all the subjects for which he appeared. But in 1970 the rule was
amended to the effect that the grace marks will be 1 per cent of the total aggregate marks for any
particular subject of the examination in which he has failed Subhash Chander appeared for the Final
M.B.B.S. examination in 1974 and secured 821 106 out of 200 marks in the practical examination
and 95 out 200 marks in the theory examination in Midwifery, which was one of the four subjects
for which he appeared. at that time. He had passed the examinations in the other three subjects for
which the total aggregate was 1200 marks. Under the old rule he would have been entitled to 16
grace marks at 1 per cent of the total aggregate of all the four subjects, namely, 1600 marks. But he
was allowed only 4 grace marks under the new rule being 1 per cent of, the aggregate for the subject
in which he had failed namely, Midwifery. The High Court accepted his contention that amendment
of the rule made in 1970 was retrospective in operation though it was made applicable to Subhash
Chander only in 1974 merely because he had joined the integrated course in 1965 when the rule
regarding the award of grace marks was more liberal. In allowing the appeal against the judgment of
the Full Bench we have held that (there was no question of the rule having any retrospective
operative as it was framed in 1970 and it did not say that it was operative from any earlier date and
it was applied to Subhash Chander only in 1974. It could not be stated to be retrospective ill
operation merely because it was applied to Subhash Chander who had joined the course in 1965
before the amendment was made in 1970.

7. In the present case also the new decisions are prima facie prospective in operation and they did
not become. retrospective merely because they subsequently applied to students who had already
started their educational careers. 5.4 Thus, he contended that for the vacancy year 2013-2014 the
applicants did not have the eligibility for promotion as they were not available in Delhi charge and
for the vacancy year 2014-2015 the applicants would be governed by letter dated 02.12.2014, which
is prospective in application. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment of
Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. SL Dutta, AIR 1993 SC 363 in which the
following has been observed:-

As has been laid down more than once by this Court, the Court should rarely interfere where the
question of validity of a particular policy is in question and all the more so where considerable
material in the fixing of policy are of a highly technical or scientific nature.

6. We have heard both sides and have perused the material on record. In our opinion, this case is
squarely covered by the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.N. Ponnappan (supra)
as also in the case of Deo Narain (supra). This case is also covered by judgment of this Bench in the
case of Chet Ram Meena (supra). In all these cases, it has been clearly laid down that on inter region

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 7

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

transfer on his own request; a transferee willingly forfeits his seniority and agrees to be placed at the
bottom of the seniority list of that cadre in the new region. Thus, his seniority is reckoned from the
date on which he joined the new region. However, such a transferee forfeits only his seniority and
not the length of service that he has rendered in the previous region. Thus, despite his bottom
seniority, if such a transferee is still senior enough to fall within the zone of consideration for
promotion in the new region then his eligibility for such promotion has to be considered by taking
into account service rendered by him in the previous region. It is possible that some of the seniors
may not themselves be eligible for promotion as they may not have the requisite qualifying service.
However, the transferee himself would be eligible because his past service has to be counted. In this
regard, we also rely on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of I.C. Joshi & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.
(OA-651/1997) dated 26.08.1997. The aforesaid judgment of this Tribunal was upheld by Hon ble
High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3776/2001 and SLP filed against the same was dismissed.
Again in the case of Renu Mullick Vs. UOI, 1994 AIR 1152 Hon ble Supreme Court has considered
this issue wherein similar instructions had been issued by Central Board of Excise and Customs. The
Hon ble Supreme Court ruled that the transferee was only forfeiting his seniority and not his length
of service. The Hon ble Supreme Court also considered the relevant service rules regarding
promotion of UDCs to the post of Inspector and opined that the rules no where provide that the
qualifying service has to be spent only in one Collectorate. In the case of C.N. Ponnappan (supra)
also the Apex Court considered the relevant Recruitment Rules for promotion and observed as
follows:-

›. We have considered the appeals in the light of provisions contained in the relevant rules. For
promotion of a Lower Division Clerk to the post of Upper Division Clerk, which is in issue in Civil
Appeals Nos. 1221 of 1987 and 2320 of 1995, the relevant rules required "eight years regular service
in the grade." Similarly, for promotion from the post of Stenographer Grade III to Stenographer
Grade II, which is in issue in Civil Appeal No. 529 of 1989, "five years of regular service in the post of
' Stenographer Grade III" was required.

4. The service rendered by an employee at the place from where he was transferred compassionate
grounds is regular service. It is no different from the service rendered at the place where he is
transferred. Both the periods are taken into account for the purpose of leave and retiral benefits. The
fact that as a result of transfer he is placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the place of transfer
does not wipe out his service at the place from where he was transferred. The said service, being
regular service in the grade, has to taken into account as part of his experience for the purpose of
eligibility for promotion and it cannot be ignored only on the ground that it was not rendered at the
place where he has been transferred. In our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the service
held at the place from where the employee has been transferred has to be counted as experience for
the purpose of eligibility for promotion at the place where he has been transferred.

5. It has been pointed out that subsequent to the judgment of the Tribunal in Poonappan's case
(supra), the relevant rules governing promotion from Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk
have been amended by notification dated June 30, 1986 and now the requirement is "with eight
years regular service in the grade in the unit/office/establishment/laboratory/center/unit, etc. in
which they are considered for promotion."

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 8

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

6. Since we are in agreement with the view of the Tribunal on the interpretation of the rules as they
stood at the relevant time, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 6.1 Thus, it is
clear that different Courts have repeatedly being laying down that on inter zone/region transfer a
transferee will be entitled to count his length of service for the purpose of promotion in the new
region/zone despite forfeiting his seniority. Yet the respondents (CBDT) have still being issuing
instructions contrary to these judgments. In the case of Chet Ram Meena (supra), this Tribunal had
struck down Para-5 of the Circular dated 27.05.2014 as being contrary to the law laid down by
Hon ble Supreme Court. Yet the respondents have repeated similar instructions for 2014-2015
vacancy.

6.2 Learned counsel for the respondents had contended that these instructions had the same force
as rules and would operate in areas in which the Rules were silent. We have seen the relevant
promotion rules for the post of Inspector of Income Tax. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduced below for the sake of convenience:-

Supervisor Grade-II, Head Clerks, Tax Assistants and Upper Division Clerks (hereafter referred to
as the Ministerial Cadre) and Stenographers Grade-I, Grade-II and Grade-III (hereafter referred to
as Stenographers Cadre), with three years service in the respective grade, who have qualified in
the Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors. The names of all such qualified
candidates shall be arranged cadre-wise, in two separate lists for each cadre. In the first list, the
names of all the qualified candidates falling in the Cadre shall be arranged in order of seniority in
the Department. In the second list, the names of all the qualified persons falling the cadre shall be
arranged according to the date or, as the case may be, the year of passing the Departmental
Examination, provided that the persons who pass the examination on the same date shall be
arranged. On the approval of persons in the said lists relating to each cadre, by the Departmental
Promotion Committee, the names of all the selected candidates shall be arranged in two select lists
in the ratio of 3:1, one containing the names of the persons from both the cadres on the basis of
seniority, and the other containing the names of the persons from both the cadres on the basis of the
date or, as the case may be, the year of passing the Departmental Examination. Vacancies in the
promotion quota shall be filled from the said two select lists in such a manner that the ratio of 3:1 is
maintained between the Ministerial Cadre and the Stenographers Cadre. 6.3 It is no where
provided in the Rules that the entire qualifying service should be in one region. The Rule simply says
that three years service in the relevant grade is required. The Executive Instructions issued by CBDT
are contrary to this Rule inasmuch as they lay down that the entire service should be in one region
only. Thus, these Instructions are not filling the gaps existing in the Rules but are adding conditions,
which are not there in the Rules. Hence, by issue of these Executive Instructions, the respondents
are modifying the original Rule itself. This obviously cannot be permitted as Statutory Rules cannot
be amended by issue of Executive Instructions.

7. Thus, we come to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to be considered for promotion in
Delhi region, provided they are senior enough to fall in the zone of consideration despite their
bottom seniority, after taking into account their services rendered in the previous region. However,
there is merit in the contention of the respondents that the applicants would not be eligible for
vacancy year 2013-2014 since they joined Delhi region on different dates between September and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 9

 Sh. Subodh Kumar vs The Secretary (Revenue) on 23 July, 2015

October, 2013 and were not available in that region on 01.01.2013 (or even 01.04.2013), which was
the crucial date for determining eligibility for vacancy year 2013-2014. Nevertheless, as on
01.01.2014 they were all in position in Delhi region and are, therefore, available for consideration for
vacancy year 2014-2015.

8. Accordingly, we allow this O.A. and direct the respondents to consider the applicants for
promotion to the post of Inspector for vacancy year 2014-2015 after taking into account services
rendered by them in their previous regions provided they are senior enough to fall within the zone of
consideration despite their bottom seniority. Clause-5 of the letter dated 27.05.2014 has already
been set aside by us by our judgment in Chet Ram Meena s case (supra) and no further orders are
required. No costs.

(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)

Member (A) Member (J)

/Vinita/

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/107278593/ 10