ORDER
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) The applicants are Superintendents in the Department of Customs and Central Excise. The post of Superintendent is promotional post for Inspectors in the Department. In the year 2001-2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) decided to restructure its department. As a result, several posts of Inspector got abolished and Superintendents posts got added. The respondents adopted the reservation policy and appointed some SC/ST candidates in the additional posts created. In this process, the SC/ST category candidates appointed by promotion
4
on their own merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation were not to be adjusted against the reserved points but against unreserved points, creating further vacancies in the SC/ST quota to which other Inspectors were promoted. The matter was challenged before the Chandigarh Bench as well as Patna Bench of the Tribunal, where it was held that reservation in favour of SC/ST is not applicable in the upgradation/restructuring scheme and the respondents were directed to consider the promotions of the applicants therein for those 134 posts of Superintendent Group B which are covered by restructuring scheme without applying reservation roster for those posts, from due date with all consequential benefits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2. It is stated that Ministry of Personnel vide letter dated 25.10.2004 also advised not to apply reservation while filling the posts upgraded on account of restructuring.
3. In the meantime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 29.07.2008, Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and others along with other connected matters, held that policy of reservation can be applied at the stage of giving effect to cadre restructuring exercise.
4. The order of the Patna Bench in OA 36/2003 dated 6.02.2007 was challenged by the government before the Hon'ble High Court of Patna, which matter has since been transferred to the Hon'ble Apex Court for uniform decision. The respondents' counsel, therefore, argued that since the issue is not free from
5
doubt and is also pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents were right in keeping the representations pending.
5. In the reply filed by respondent no.25, similar argument has been put forth stating that the matter being sub judice, the present OA deserves sine die adjournment with liberty to applicants to revive the same upon disposal of the case by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
6. In his reply, private respondent no.6 has also taken a similar stand.
7. Private respondents number 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 in their replies have also taken a stand that the contention raised by the applicants stands already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pushpa Rani (supra). It is submitted that the parameters of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely apply to the present O.A.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings available on record and perused the judgments cited.
9. Clearly, the subject matter of dispute is now before the Hon'ble Apex Court for adjudication on whether reservation will apply or not in restructuring cases, in the SLP filed by the respondents. We, therefore, adjourn this OA sine-die with liberty to all sides to approach this Tribunal again after the issue
6
is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if so advised. No costs.
( Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal ) ( P.K. Basu ) Member (J) Member (A)
/dkm/