Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India & Others on 19 August, 2008
Author: Madan B. Lokur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+ Writ Petition (Civil) No.8658 of 2004
Judgment reserved on: July 14, 2008
% Judgment delivered on: August 19, 2008
Ashok Kumar Pandey
Appraiser (Direct Recruit)
Civil Services Examination (1991)
Custom House
15/1, Strand Road
Calcutta - 700001 ...Petitioner
Through Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocate
Versus
1. Union of India
Service through the Secretary
Ministry of Finance
North Block
New Delhi - 110001
2. Central Board of Excise & Customs
Service through its Chairman
Ministry of Finance
North Block
New Delhi - 110001
3. Commissioner of Customs
Customs House
15/1, Strand Road
Kolkata - 700001
WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 1 of 7
4. M.R. Remi Reddi
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service (IC&CES)
Deputy Commissioner
Vijaywada Division
204, Diva Ram Towers
Praja Shakti Nagar
Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
5. Sandeep Mohan Singh Puri
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service (IC&CES)
Under Secretary, Central Excise-7 Section
Central Board of Excise & Customs
Jeewan Deep Building,
New Delhi -110001.
6. Sandeep Raj Jain
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service (IC&CES)
Deputy Commisisoner
Office of the Commissioner of Customs (GEN)
New Customs House
Near IGI Airport
New Delhi-110037
7. Subedar Ram Gaulam
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service (IC&CES)
Assistant Commissioner
Central Excise, Kanpur-I
C/o Office of Commissioner of Central Excise
117/7, Sarvodya Nagar
Kanpur-208005
8. G. Chandra Sekarai
Indian Customs & Central Excise Service (IC&CES)
Deputy Commissioner
Vadodara Division-IV
Central Excise and Customs Building
5th Floor, Race Course Circle
Vadodara-7, Gujarat
WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 2 of 7
4 to 8 as representative
Indian Customs & Central Excise
Service (IC&CES 1993 onwards) ... Respondents
Through Mr. Suresh Kait with Mr. Abhishek
Verma, Advocate
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest?
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
The question that we are required to answer in this writ
petition is whether it would be inequitable to direct the Respondents to
allocate to the Petitioners a post in the Customs and Central Excise
„Group A‟ Service. In our opinion, on the facts of the case and in view
of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kishorilal
Bablani, (1999) 1 SCC 729, the answer is in the affirmative.
2. The Petitioners participated in the Civil Services
Examination, 1991 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission.
The number of vacancies advertised was about 950. For the sake of
convenience we are considering the case of Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey,
since the facts in all the connected cases are similar. Mr. Pandey ranked
538 in the merit list of successful candidates and after undergoing
necessary training, he was allocated a post in the Customs Appraisers
Service Group „B‟. The formal letter of appointment was issued on 8 th
February, 1993, but his date of joining was given retrospective effect
from 12th October, 1992.
3. According to Mr. Pandey, he came across an affidavit filed
by the Chairman of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in the
Supreme Court from which he came to know that between 1980 and
1996 a very large number of vacancies available to the quota of directly
recruited candidates was diverted to the promotee quota; that as a result,
for the examination under consideration, the number of vacancies
available for directly recruited candidates was not correctly calculated;
and that if the correct number of vacancies were calculated, Mr. Pandey
would have been allocated a „Group A‟ service.
4. On these broad facts, Mr. Pandey filed an original application
before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in
which he prayed that a direction be issued to the Respondents to appoint
him to a post in the „Group A‟ service relating to Central Excise and
Customs. Mr. Pandey sought his appointment to a „Group A‟ post with
effect from the date of his initial appointment in the „Group B‟ service.
5. The original application was dismissed by the Tribunal on
the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation,
but that decision was set aside by this Court in a writ petition filed by
Mr. Pandey, being CWP 5540 of 2001 decided on 12 th July, 2002. The
original application was then heard on merits and by the impugned
judgment and order dated 10th October, 2003 it was dismissed. Feeling
aggrieved, Mr. Pandey filed a writ petition in this Court and that is how
the matter is now before us.
6. What is the relevance of the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in Bablani on which we rely? The facts in that case were
more or less similar. It was alleged in that case that the number of
vacancies to be filled in by the candidates who had qualified at the
I.A.S. and Allied Services examination was wrongly intimated. It was
averred that had the vacancies been correctly notified, Bablani would
have been appointed to a Class I post in 1974. In his petition filed in
1985, the Tribunal accepted the contention of Bablani and granted him
the relief prayed for. However, the Supreme Court, while deciding his
case in December, 1998 held that if the relief granted to him is also
granted to all those similarly placed, then there would be a complete
disruption of postings and positions in respect of those appointed way
back in 1974. Therefore, while not upsetting the relief granted to him,
the Supreme Court declined to extend and grant a similar relief to
anybody else, in view of the lapse of time and potential disruption.
7. The reason given by the Supreme Court for coming to this
conclusion was:
"Delay defeats equity is a well-known principle of
jurisprudence. Delay of 15 and 20 years cannot be
overlooked when an applicant before the court seeks equity.
It is quite clear that the applicants for all these years had no
legal right to any particular post. After more than 10 years,
the process of selection and notification of vacancies cannot
be and ought not to be reopened in the interest of the proper
functioning and morale of the services concerned. It would
also jeopardise the existing positions of a very large number
of members of that service."
8. The law laid down by the Supreme Court is fully applicable
to the facts of this case. If the posts and postings made in 1992 are
disturbed today, it would cause an immense disruption to a very large
number of persons in the service, over a considerable period of time.
Moreover, like Bablani, the Petitioners in this case have no right to hold
a particular post. Furthermore, no mala fides have been alleged against
anybody, and there is no overriding reason warranting a settled position
(unfortunately for the Petitioners) to get unsettled after such a long lapse
of time.
9. Consequently, we see no merit in the writ petition. It is
dismissed.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
August 19, 2008 J.R. MIDHA, J.
ncg
Certified that the corrected copy of
the judgment has been transmitted
in the main Server.
