The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi has quashed the ‘post-based’ promotions of assistant commissioners and ordered vacancy-based roster for 2020–2022.
The bench of R.N. Singh (Judicial Member) and B. Anand (Administrative Member) has observed that the action of respondents in not calculating the
vacancies in JTS for the year 2020, 2021 & 2022 strictly as per OM dated 07.01.2007 and the ratio as prescribed in Rule 5 (4) (a) and Rule 5 (4) (b) of Recruitment Rules are declared as illegal and accordingly the respondents are directed to reallocate the vacancies arising during 2020, 2021 & 2022 in the ratio of 13:2:1 to Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and Customs Appraisers strictly as per Rule 5 (4) (a) and Rule 5 (4) (b) of Recruitment Rules and promote the applicants as well as other eligible persons to JTS with all consequential benefits.
The background to this controversy is that in the year 2013, the respondents, with a view to alleviate the stagnation being experienced by the three feeder categories of ‘Superintendent of Central Excise, Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and Customs Appraisers, decided to create 2118 posts of ‘Assistant Commissioners’, which are to be filled up 100% by promotion instead of 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment as envisaged by the Recruitment Rules, as these 2118 posts were originally created in the year 2013 on temporary basis for five years upto year 2018 and thereafter the duration of the posts were extended further upto 31.12.2025.
The apportionment of the posts of ‘Assistant Commissioners’ among the three feeder categories as mentioned above has a long chequred history dating back to the year 1989, interspersed with litigation in various judicial fora. The department in the year, 1989 had come out with a scheme ensuring equitable distribution of promotional opportunities among the above three categories and the same was allowed by the Supreme Court.
Initially, the quota for the three feeder categories were fixed as 6:1:2, i.e., in a cycle of nine vacancies, which have to be filled up, first six will be given to Superintendent of Central Excise, one will be given to Superintendent of Customs (Preventive) and two will be given to Customs Appraisers.
Evidently, even at that time, a controversy arose that after these posts have been initially filled up, whenever vacancies arise off and on, what should be the method to be followed by the department in filling up those vacancies. Should it be ‘post based’ or should it be ‘vacancy based’.
The applicants by way of a second round of litigation have come before the Tribunal in the present OA seeking the following reliefs) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
The applicants submits that no final seniority list for the post of ‘Appraiser’ has been notified by the respondents from 2014 onwards and they have used the seniority list of ‘Appraisers’ dated 02.08.2013 only to fill up 2118 posts of ‘temporary Assistant Commissioners’.
The tribunal held that the order dated 15.07.2023 is quashed and set aside to the extent the applicants claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs/JTS has not been considered by calculating the vacancies of Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs/JTS by following ‘vacancy based roster’ as per the statutory Recruitment Rules DOP&T instructions dated 19.01.2007 as well as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of All India Federation of Central Excise Vs. Union of India & Ors., 1999 (3) SCC 384.
The tribunal held that action of respondents in applying ‘post based roster’ while distributing the vacancies in JTS/Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise for the year 2020, 2021 & 2022 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to distribute the vacancies in the grade of Assistant Commissioner/JTS for the year 2020, 2021 & 2022 strictly as per ratio of 13:2:1 by applying vacancy based roster.
Case Details
Case Title: Pritam Dahiya Versus UOI
Case No.: O.A. No. 2977/2023
Date: 18.07.2025
Counsel For Applicant: M.K. Bhardwaj
Counsel For Respondent: Ravi Prakash
Read More: Kuwait Tightens Airport Customs Rules
