Information about All India Seniority List Superintendents and DPC proceedings – CIC: As far as grievance relating to promotion, the appellant is free to approach an appropriate forum its resolution as the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 03.12.2022 seeking the following information:

“Particulars of Information: The Principal Commissioner of CT (CCA) Hyderabad, issued a revised seniority list of Inspectors of CE, as on 1.1.2002, based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 15.3.2022. In this connection, the following information may kindly be supplied to me immediately.

1. Vacancy position of Inspectors for the years 1984, 1985, 1986.

2. Copies of panels of Direct recruit Inspectors including sportsmen for the years 1984,1985, 1986.

3. Copies of Panels of promotees who are promoted to the cadre of Inspectors of CE approved by DPC, for the years 1984, 1985, and 1986.

4. Intimate whether the dates of joining shown in the above seniority list of Inspectors of ICT, as on 1.1.2002 based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 15.3.2022, relates to Hyderabad/Visakhapatnam Zones. If not, state the dates of joining of ICT Inspectors, in Hyderabad/Visakhapatnam Zones.”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 03.01.2023 stating as under:

“Point 1: No records available with regard to information sought for.

Point 2: No records available with regard to information sought for.

Point 3: The information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005

Point 4: No specific instructions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement dated 15.03.2022 regarding Inspectors of ICT.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.01.2023. The FAA vide its order in Feb. 2023 (specific date not mentioned), upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Shri Bhokya Bikshapathi, CPIO appeared through video conference.

The appellant inter alia submitted that desired information was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The appellant pleaded that his original seniority in the cadre of Inspector and consequential promotion to the Cadre of Superintendent from the year 1996 is required to be restored in conformity with findings of the Supreme court Judgement dt: 15.03.2022, in Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 2009. He further submitted that instead the department issued promotion order Estt. Order (G.O) No. 90/2022, dt: 11.11.2022 granting him “Notional promotion" in the Cadre of Superintendent w.e.f. 01.06.2002. This action of the department is in clear violation of the findings of the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgement.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that information as per the records available with them has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 03.01.2023. The respondent further submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 26.09.2024 stating complete facts of the case, copy of the same was served to the appellant and requested the Commission to place it on record. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

“Information Sought by the Applicant, the reply given by the then CAO/CPIO and the position as on date is as follows:

1. Vacancy position of Inspectors for the years 1984,1985,1986:

• Reply submitted at initial RTI: No records available with regard to information sought for.

• Reply submitted at First Appeal in r/o all the points: It is submitted that, the Seniority list issued in the year 01.01.2002 revised/re-casted as per the directions dated 15.03.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 3968/2009 read with the Board’s approval vide F. No. A. 32012/34/2017-Ad.IIIA dated 06.09.2022, taking the details mentioned in 2002 Seniority list.

Comments: It is submitted that the vacancy position maintained for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 are not available as the information sought by the applicant is of almost 40 years old. Further, it is submitted that, the Seniority list issued in the year 01.01.2002 revised/re-casted as per the directions dated 15.03.2022 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C.A. No. 3968/2009 read with the Board’s approval vide F. No. A. 32012/34/2017-Ad.IIIA dated 06.09.2022, taking the details portioned in 2002 Seniority list.

2. Copies of panels of Direct recruit Inspectors including sportsmen for the years 1984, 1985, 1986.

• Reply submitted at initial RTI: No records available with regard to information sought for. Comments: There is no change in the information furnished by the then CPIO. Further, it is to submit that no panel will be prepared in respect of Direct recruit Inspectors. The staff selection commission will forward the Dossiers based on which the appointments will be made. Similarly, in respect of recruitment of sportsmen, a merit list will be drawn and offer of appointment will be made basing on the merit list. These records pertain to more than 40 years and are not available in the office.

3. Copies of Panels of promotees who are promoted to the cadre of Inspectors of CE approved by DPC, for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986.

Reply submitted at initial RTI: The information sought is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act,2005.

Comments: In this regard, it is submitted that the Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 is as follows:

“Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”

As seen from the above provision, the disclosure of the information contained in the panels would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of other employees. Accordingly, the then CPIO has conveyed the same and not disclosed the information to the applicant.

4. Intimate whether the dates of joining shown in the above seniority list of Inspectors of ICT, as on 1.1.2002 based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgement dated 15.03.2022, relates to Hyderabad/Vishakhapatnam Zones. If not, state the dates of joining of ICT Inspectors, in Hyderabad/ Visakhapatnam Zones.

Reply submitted at initial RTI: No specific instructions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement dated 15.03.2022 regarding inspectors of ICT.

Comments: The Applicant at point 4 referring the seniority list issued as on 01.01.2002 which was drawn based on the Hon’ble Supreme Court orders dated 15.03.2022, requested to clarify whether the dates mentioned in the seniority in respect of Inspectors of ICT relates to Hyderabad/ Vishakhapatnam Zones. It appears that the applicant is asking for clarification on the seniority list issued as on 01.01.2002. It is submitted that the inference has to be drawn by the applicant who is seeking the information.

It is further submitted that Shri D. Sri Rama Sastry along with 6 others have filed an OA. No. 994/2002 seeking suitable directions for fixation of seniority between Direct Recruit Inspectors and promotee Inspectors working in the common cadre of Hyderabad Zone (state of Telangana) and Vishakhapatnam Zone (state of Andhra Pradesh). This dispute includes the calculation of seniority in the cadre of inspectors from 1983 to 1991. Several other OAs have been filed in the similar issue and the details are as follows:

TABLE-A

S.No. OA. No. Applicant

1 938/2002 24 Applicants, S. Rama & 23 others

2 954/2002 19 Applicants, KVRSNS Kumar & 18 others

3 990/2002 3 Applicants, P. Ravindranath & 2 others

4 994/2002 C. Hari Kishan Rao & 6 others. (Including Shri D Sri. Rama Sastry)

5 1017/2002 1 Applicant, AS Prabhakar Rao

6 1021/2002 16 Applicants, K. Yugandhar & 15 others

7 1022/2002 9 Applicants, N Prakash Rao & 8 others

8 1050/2002 1 Applicant, S. Kameswara Rao

9 1 Applicant, Ch. Venkat Rao

The Hon’ble CAT passed the common order dated 29.12.2003 (copy enclosed as Annexure IX). Aggrieved by the orders of Hon’ble CAT, the DR Inspectors have filed writ petition before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has passed the orders dated 16.032005 in favor of the DR Inspectors (copy enclosed as Annexure X). Finally, the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed the orders dated 15.03.2022 in CA no 3968/2009 filed by Shri B.S. Murthy and others (copy enclosed as Annexure XI). The dispute includes the calculations of the vacancies in the cadre of Inspectors. The relevant portion of orders are as follows:

“62. For the above reasons it is held, that the High Court fell into error in setting aside the order of the CAT, which is hereby restored. Therefore, it is held that:

i. No excess promotions took place during the period 1983 to 1991. 25% of the actual vacancies arising every year during that period were for the promotees. No direct recruitment vacancy for any year was filled by promotees.

ii. Indents/requisitions placed with, the SSC for the recruitment of DRIs were for a part of the vacancies and not for the exact 75% of the actual vacancies available in each year

iii. The record does not bear out instances of suppression or under reporting of vacancies available for direct recruits out of the permanent cadre strength in any year, to help promotes. As a result, there is no Justification for invoking para 5 of the O.M of 1986. The department erroneously proceeded as if there were excess promotions by wrongly estimating the promote quota on the basis of the indents placed for direct recruitment.

iv.

(a) The date of appointment of direct recruits the data for counting seniority- it is not from the date of receipt of the dossiers from the recruiting authorities or the date of recommendation. Resultantly seniority of direct recruits appointed after 01.03.1986 has to be revised only from the date of their respective appointments but not earlier to 01.03.1986 as was done in the impugned seniority list.

(b) Direct recruits of 1992 could be given seniority only in that year but not earlier, or in 1991 as was erroneously done in the impunged seniority list.

v. The seniority of five applicants in O.A No. 156/86 originally fixed in terms of the order, had to be restored and could not be altered.

vi. The promoted ad hoc basis in any year in the vacancies available to them were eligible for seniority from the date of their continuous officiation, if- they were promoted within their eligible quota of that year under the Recruitment Rules

vii. Those promoted in 1983 again 17 posts diverted from Shillong, were entitled to seniority in terms of 1959 O.M.

viii. Of 137 promotees regularized on 27.10.1988, seniority of those applicants regularized under the earlier order in 1985 has to be fixed prior to 01.03.1986, on the said earlier date of their regularization in 1985.

ix Seniority of promotes functioning in temporary posts not forming part of the cadre is to be fixed from the date of promotion/ appointment.

In this context, it is submitted that in compliance to Hon’ble Apex Court orders dated 15.03.2022 the following actions were taken:

i. Revised the seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone as on 01.01.2002 and published the final seniority list on 13.10.2022;

ii. Reviewed the earlier DPC proceedings for promotion to the grade of Superintendent in Hyderabad zone and revised the dates of promotions from 1994 onwards by considering the revised seniority list of Inspectors as mentioned above and published the same on 11.11.2022.

iii. Published the revised final seniority list of Superintendents of Hyderabad Zone on 30.11.2022 consequent to review of DPC proceedings as mentioned above.

iv. Revised the final seniority list of Inspectors of Central Excise, Hyderabad Zone from 01.01.2002 to 31.12.2013 list in the cadre of Inspector was on vide C.No. II/26/22/2019-CCA (Con.Sec) both dated 19.12.2022 revised the dates of promotions for the period 06.12.2002 to 31.12.2013. Also issued the revised seniority list of Inspectors on for the period 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2019.

v. Review DPCs held on 30.11.2022 in the cadre of Inspector were held to review the promotions ordered from 30.12.2002 to 2014 and further review DPCs was 19.01.2023 to review the promotions in the cadre of Inspector ordered from 2014 to 2019 and revised the notional dates of promotions in the cadre of Inspector.

vi. Board has published the revised All India Seniority List of Superintendents for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.12.2006 on 23.12.2022 and for the period 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2011 on 10.01.2023, duly incorporating the changes as per the revised final seniority list of Superintendents of Hyderabad Zone which was published on 30.11.2022.

vii. Based on the revised All India Seniority List Superintendents as detailed above, eligible officers were promoted to the cadre of Assistant Commissioner vide Office Order No. 5 issued by Board from F. No. A.32012/02/2023-Ad.II dated 13.01.2023, Office Order No. 66 issued by Boarded from F. No. A.32012/22/2023-Ad.II dated 11.05.2023, Office Order No. 101 issued by Board from F. No. A.32012/32/2023- Ad.II dated 06.07.2023 and Office Order No. 105 issued by Board from F. No. A.32012/56/2023-Ad.II dated 15.07.2023.

Consequently, on implementation of the orders of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 15.03.2022 in CA Nos.3968/2009 & batch filed by Shri B.S. Murthy & others regarding inter se seniority of DR/Promotee officers, revised seniority lists of officers in the cadre of Superintendents were issued on 14.12.2022 & 14.02.2023, a review DPCs were held to review the DPC was held from the year 1994 to 2020 and notional promotions were given to officers vide E.O. (G.O) No. 90/2022 dated 11.11.2022, E.O. (G.O) No. 126/2022 dated 30.11.2022, E.O. (G.O) No. 132/2022 dated 19.12.2022 and E.O. (G.O) No. 54/2023 dated 22.05.2023.

In this connection, a contempt petition dairy number 41575 of 2023 has been filed by Shri S. Kameswara Rao and others for non-implementation of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.03.2022 in CA Nos.3968/2009 & batch filed by Shri B.S. Murthy & others.

Further, Shri P. Veeranna has filed an OA no 796 of 2022 seeking restoration of seniority of the officer and the same has been dismissed by the Hon'ble CAT.

Aggrieved by the Hon'ble CAT order, Shri P. Veeranna has filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The matter is sub-judice.”

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, noted that point-wise reply as per the records available with the respondent has been given to the appellant vide letter dated 03.01.2023. Further, the detailed written submission dated 26.09.2024 filed by the respondent, a copy of the same was served to the appellant.

As far as grievance relating to promotion of the appellant is concerned, he is free to approach an appropriate forum its resolution as the Commission is not a grievance redressal forum.

In view of the above, the Commission finds that appropriate reply has been given by the respondent and interference of the Commission is not warranted in the matter.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: D Sri Rama Sastry v. Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Hyderabad, File No: CIC/DGSTX/A/2023/129103; Date of Decision: 03.10.2024