WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 1 of 7 * 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 2 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 3 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. WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 4 of 7 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 8th 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 WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 5 of 7 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 12th 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 WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 6 of 7 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 WP (C) No.8658/2004 Page 7 of 7 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.