For information to All,
Madras CAT heard our petition today i. e the 16th of December, 2016. The arguments extended for more than one hour. Our Counsel, Government Counsel, ASG & Counsel for both Petitions/ Petitioners were present. Our Counsel presented the case in a very wise manner. Just when the Judicial Member was about to vacate the Stay Counsel for Petitioner Bhaktavatchalam presented her view that the 50 percent quota earmarked for promotions to the Grade of Assistant Commissioner in the ratio of 13:2:1 was not being properly followed. The M(A) was quite confused because Parmar case was about placement of Seniority in Superintendent Cadre in the contemporary context of DPC. M(A) then wanted to know from the Department the work that has been done by CBEC for implementation of principles laid down in Parmar case. The ASG vehemently argued that the Promotions were ad hoc in nature and that the Petitioners'grievances can always be taken care of & wanted the Court to delink Bhaktavatchalam's petition. Counsel for Bhaktavatchalam then informed the Court that CBEC is always in the habit of ordering Adhoc promotions & regularising those promotions and presenting them as Fait Accompli. Our Counsel forcefully made the point on 1766 Vacancies & the fact of existence of Vigilance Clearance only till December 2016. It was also argued that any further delay will cause enormous damage to the promotional prospects of Superintendents of Central Excise which happen to be the most stagnating cadre. It was also stressed that around 900 people have retired because of the delay in the conduct of DPC & if the hearing is pushed to the 12th of January,2017 DPC cannot be held at least for the next four months by which time another 200 will retire thereby squaring up the 2118 posts created for mitigation of stagnation in the vacant category further enhancing the danger of abolition of such posts as they would have remained vacant for a long time. Bharathan's counsel argued that the decision in Parmar case had already been implemented in Shillong by displaying a Seniority List when the M(A) intervened to point out that it was only a Draft Seniority List and specifically asked to confirm the status on its finality. The Counsel for Bharathan was unable to confirm in positive the status. In addition it was also argued that Mr. Jitendra (Actually Jitendra had signed the petition in his capacity as General Secretary of Karnataka Unit) who joined in 1992 was in the reckoning for promotion as Assistant Commissioner. Unfortunately the ASG & his team were not prepared on this aspect. Before the aspect of Jitendra's status could be focused Counsel for Mr.Bhaktavatchalam again started confusing the issue. The Judges then posted the case to be heard on the 12th of January, 2017.
Regards,
R.Chandramouli
President
AIACEGEO
