IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13.4.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DHARMA RAO ELIPE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.K.KRISHNAN W.P.Nos.8361, 8388, 17208, 17257, 21692 to 21694, 29468, 34708, 38622 of 2004 and W.P.Nos.2723, 3302 and 8606 of 2005 AND W.P.M.P.Nos.9866, 20444, 20497, 26220, 26221, 35789, 35791, 41879, 46155 of 2004, 12236 & 9286 of 2005, 17258 and 17508 of 2006 and WVMP.864 of 2004 Tmt.S.Lakshmi S.Ramprasad ..Petitioner in WP 8361/04 R.Shakunthala ..Petitioner in WP 8388/04 ..R2 to R4 in WP 21692/04 A.Maria Joseph Raj ..Petitioner in WP 17208/04, 17257/04 N.Jayanthi ..Petitioner in WP 34708/04 R.Mohanraj ..Petitioner in WP 2723/05 T.Sivaprakasam ..Petitioner in WP 3302/05 2.Chairman Central Board of Excise of Customs North Block, New Delhi 3.The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise 121 Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. ..R3 & R4 WP 3302/2005 4.The Commissioner of Central Excise Central Revenue Building, Madurai 625 002. ..Petitioners 2 to 4 in WP 29468/04 Respondent 3 to 5 in WP 2723/05 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The Commissioner of Central Excise Bibikulam, Madurai 625 002 ..Petitioners 2 to 5 in WP 38622/04 8606/05 The Secretary to Govt. Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs (Dept. of Revenue) Rep.Union of India, New Delhi 110 001 ..1st Petitioner in WP 21692/04,21694/04 29468,38622,8606/05 ..1st Respondent in WP No.8361/04, 8388, 17208, 17257, 38622/04 ..2nd Respondent in WP 34708/04,2723/05 3302/05 The Commissioner of Customs Customs House, Chennai -600 001. ..2nd Petitioner in WP 21692/04 21694/04. ..2nd Respondent in 8361/04, 8388, 17208,17257, 3rd Respondent in 34708/04 The Central Administrative Tribunal Madras ..3rd Respondent in WP 8361/04 15th Respondent in WP 17208/04, 13th respondent in WP 17257/04 ..1st Respondent in 21692/04, 21694/04 29468/04, 34708/04,38622 & 8606/05 6th Respondent in WP 2723/05 5th Respondent in WP 3302/05 Mr. K.Raghusevlan Preventive Officer (Ad-hoc) Customs House Chennai 600 001 ..4th Respondent in WP 8361/04 5th Respondent in WP 8388/04, 21692/04 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.A.Aruputharaja ..2nd Respondent in WP 29468/04 1st Respondent in WP 2723/05 2.A.Karunanithi ..2nd Respondent in WP 38622/04 S.Diwakar ..1st Respondent in WP 3302/05 V.Rajamanickam ..2nd Respondent in 8606/05 S.Lakshmi Ramprasad Geeta Rave K.Prabagaran S.Perumal Respondents 3,4,6 to 7 in WP.8388/04. P.Venkateswaran R.Suresh P.Ramdas Nayak P.S.Ganesan V.Karthikeyan E.Visalakshi M.A.Brown S.Natarajan Revathi Srinivasan J.Sivakumar A.Vinod Kumar Respondents 3 to 14 in WP.17208/04 V.Radhakrishnan V.Selvaraj M.V.Swaminathan K.Subramani P.Arunugam Raja D.Balasubramani P.Deenadayalan K.V.Muralidharan M.A.Sailesh Gupta T.M.Y.Kumar Respondents 3 to 12 in WP.17257/04 2. Lakshmi 3. R.Sakuntala 4. Ramprasad 5. K.Raghaselvan Respondents 2 to 5 in WP.21692/04. 6. Geeta Rave 7. K.Prabagaran 8. S.Perumal 9. T.Babu 10. R.Ravi https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11. S.Nesakumar 12. M.Balaguru 13. P.Manikandan 14. S.Nagamalai 15. C.Raja Ganesh 16. Alexander Louis Baskar 17. G.Rajavel 18. S.Kamalakannan 19. G.Hariharan 20. N.V.Ravi Kumar 21. M.Chelladurai R6 to 21 in WP.No.21692/04 2. P.Venkateswaran 3. R.Suresh 4. R.Ramdas Nayak 5. P.S.Ganesan 6. V.Karthikeyan 7. R.Rajaram Mohan 8. E.Visalakshi 9. M.A.Brown 10.S.Natarajan 11. Revathi Srinivasan 12. J.Sivakumar 13. A.Vinod Kumar R2 to R13 in WP.No.21694/04 4. Chitra Balachander 5. C.Magesh 6. R.Kavitha 7. G.Jayashree 8. Rekah Ramesh 9. J.Kamatchi 10. G.Nedunchezhian R4 to 10 in WP.No.34708/04. 5. Geeta Rave, 6. K. Prabagaran 7. S. Perumal 8. T. Babu 9. R. Ravi 10. S. Nesakumar 11. M. Balaguru 12. P. Manikandan 13. S. Nagamalai 14. C. Raja Ganesh 15. Alexander Louis Basker 16. G. Rajavel, 17. S. Kamalakannan 18. G. Hariharan 19. N. V. Ravikumar 20. M. Chelladurai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 21. V. Radhakrishnan 22. V. Selvaraj 23. M. V. Swaminathan 24. K. Subramani 25. P. Arumugam Raja 26. D. Balasubramani 27. P. Deenadayalan 28. K. V. Muralidharan 29. M. A. Bailesh Gupta 30. T. M. Y. Kumar RR21 to 30 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 22.6.2004 in WMP.19218/04 31. Mr. T. Govindan, 32. Mr. C. Kamalaharan 33. G. Mekhala 34. Smt Chitra Natarajan 35. Smt Sunitha Santhosh Kumar 36. Smt A. Tamil Mozhi 37. Mr. G. Velkumaran, 38. Mr. G. Guruvaiah, 39. P. Deivanai 40. K. Sudhakar 41. K. Sriram 42. S. Nithayanandam 43. N. Vishnu Rajan 44. M. Krishnan 45. S. Bagavathi Peruamal Pillai 46. P. S. Samson, 47. T. Shanthi 48. Mr. D. Divakar 49. Mr. S. Irudayarajan 50. Mr. M. Ravikumar 51. Mr. Jahabar Sathick 52. Mr. R. Yamunai Thuraivan 53. Sundaraj Gugan RR31 to 53 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 13.10.04 n WPMPS 36081/04, & 35918, 35919 & 35920/04 54. R.Bhuvaneswari 55. Aruna Venkatesh, 56. A.Maria Joseph Raj 57. Bhavani Chinnaswamy https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 58. S.Kamalakannan 59. Aruna Ganesan 60. Kamatchi Muralidharan 61. Geetha Prakash 62. N.I.Mukuntan 63. P.S.Vijayalakshmi 64. P.K.Radhakrishnan 65. M.Nirmala Devi 66. Chitra Balachander 67. Hema Karthikeyan 68. B.Usha 69. K.Ramasubramanian 70. R.Sarangarajan 71. Jayanthi Natarajan 72. E.Devendran 73. S.Sreevidhya 74. K.Anantha Ganesan 75. M.Elango R54 to 75 . Impleaded as per order of Court dated 28.4.2006 and made in W.P.M.P.No.14081 and 14082 of 2006 . 76. V.Anandakrishnan 77. S.Sumathy 78. N.Malathy 79. J.Majoline Daisy Jeyarani 80. N.P.Ajith 81. G.Suresh 82. S.Jayasankar 83. V.Loganathan 84. M.S.Karthikeyan 85. N.Sakthivel 86. D.Sankar 87. S.Prabhakaran 88. S.K.Selvakumar 89. G.Raghu Raman 90. B.Ramesh Babu 91. R.Suresh 92. C.K.Anandan 93. M.D.Indra 94. Kalpana Neelakantan 95. K.Neeraja 96. Maria Fatima Sheila 97. M.M.D.Attahullah 98. R.Mohana Shanmuga Sundaram 99. M.Victor Wilson 100.K.S.Pyinthemil Vendan 101.V.Kumaraguru 102 S.Elangovan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ R76 to R102 impleaded as per order dated 25.10.2006 by PDDJ AND RSJ in W.P.M.P.No.10640 and 10641 of 2006 in W.P.No.8361 of 2004. 103. Shanthi Venkataraman 104. K.Balaji 105. A.Sasirekha R 103 to R 105 impleaded as per order dated 7.11.2006 by EDRJ and SKKJ in W.P.M.P.No.17258, 17508/06 106. G.Surya Kumar Prabu, 107. Sheeba Murali RR 106 & 107 impleaded as per Order dated 23.11.2006 by EDRJ and SKKJ in W.P.M.P.No.16651 and 16902 / 2006 in W.P.No.8361 of 2004. W.P.NO.8388 OF 2004 9. T.Babu 10. R.Ravi 11.S.Nesakumar 12.M.Balaguru 13.P.Manikandan 14.S.Nagamalai 15.C.Raja Ganesh 16.Alexander Louis Baskar 17.G.Rajavel 18.S.Kamalakannan 19.G.Hariharan 20.N.V.Ravikumar 21.M.Chelladurai Respondents 5 to 21 are working as Preventive Officer (Ad-hoc), Customs House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai. 22.The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Chennai – 600 104 23. P.Venkateswaran 24. R.Suresh 25. P.Ramdas Nayak 26. P.S.Ganesan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 27. V.Karthikeyan 28. R.Rajaram Mohan 29. E.Visalakshi 30. M.A.Brown 31. S.Natarajan 32. Revathi Srinivasan 33. J.Sivakumar 34. A.Vino Kumar RR 23 to 34 Impleaded as per order of this Court dated 1.6.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.17319 of 2004. W.P.8361 of 2004 is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the third respondent relating to his order passed in O.A. No.558, 538 and 909 of 2003 dated 30- 12-2003 and quash the same and direct the respondent to grant promotion/redesignation pursuant to the new Recruitment Rule 5(ii) of Central Excise & Customs Department Senior Tax Assistants (Group C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 published vide Notification dated 16-1-2003 and Rule 4(4) of the Central Excise & Customs Department Tax Assistants (Group C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 published vide Notification dated 2-5-2003 in respect of stipulation regarding inter se seniority among ministerial cadre of UDCs and Technical Cadre of DEOs. b. Calling for the records of the 2nd/1st respondent in OA.No.558/03 dated 31.12.03 quash the same (WP.No.8388/04, 21692) c. Calling for the records of the 15th respondent in OA.No.538/03 dated 30.12.2003 quash the same (WP.No.17208/04, 21694/04) d. Calling for the records of the 13th respondent in OA.No.909/03 dated 30.12.2003 quash the same (WP.No.17257/04) e. Calling for the records of the 1st respondent in OA.No.639/03 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal quash the order passed herein (WP.No.29468/04, 2723/05) f. Calling for the records of the impugned order dated 14.10.2004 of the 1st respondent made in OA.No.71/04 quash the same (WP.No.34708/04) g. Calling for the records in OA.No.1150/03 on the file of the 1st Respondent order passed therein dated 02.08.2004 (WP.No.38622/04) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ h. Calling for the records of the impugned order dated 30.04.2004 of the 5th respondent in OA.No.462/03 (WP.No.3302/05) i. Calling for the records in OA.1025/03 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal the respondent herein and quash the same (WP.8606/05) For Petitioners in W.P.8361/2004 : Mr.A.L.Somayaji, S.C. for M/s.V.Perumal For petitioners in W.Ps.8388, : Mr.Vijayanarayanan, S.C. for 17208, 17257 & M/s.R.Parthiban 34708/2004, 3302/2005& for respondents in WPMP.12236/2005 : For petitioners in W.Ps.21692 to 21694/2004, For R.1 & R.2 in W.P.8361/2004, W.P.8388/2004 & WPMP.36830/2004: Mr.T.Chandrasekan, SCGSC For petitioners in W.Ps.29467 & 29468, 38622/2004 & 8606/2005 : Mr.Patty B.Jagannathan For R.21 to R.53 in W.P.8361/2004 & for R.23 to R.34 in W.P.8388/2004, for R.5 & R.10 in W.P.34708/2004, for petitioners in WPMP.12236/2005, for R.3, R.4 & R.11 in W.P.17208/2004 and for R.3 & R.5 to R.12 in WP. 17257/2004 : M/s.P.V.S.Giridhar Associates For R.5, R.6, R.8 to R.11, R.14 & R.16 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to R.21 in WP.8388/04 : M/s.Kamatchi Sundaresan For respondents in W.P.29467/2004 : M/s.R.Neethi Perumal For R.2 & R.3 in W.P.34708/2004 & for R.2 to R.5 in W.P.2723/2005 & for R.1 & R.2 in W.P.17257/2004 : Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl.Solicitor General assisted by Mr.S.Udayakumar, SCGSC For R.2 in W.P.38622/2004 & W.P.8606/2005 : Mr.N.R.Chandran, S.C. for Mr.Akbar Rao For impleaded parties C.K.Chandrasekaran for in W.P.8388/2004 : M/s.Row & Reddy For impleaded parties in W.P. 29468/2004 : Mr.R.Muthukumarsamy, S.C. for M/s.S.Silambanan COMMON ORDER DHARMA RAO ELIPE, J. The employees of two cadres of the Customs Department, strike swords against each other through this litigation, claiming seniority against each other for further promotion. 2. On a perusal of the entire materials placed on record, this Court is able to find that in the Central Excise and Custom Departments, initially there were two cadres, viz. Ministerial Cadre and Executive Cadre. The ministerial cadre consisted of Lower Division Clerks (LDCs), Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) and Tax Assistants. An LDC could claim promotion to the post of UDC/UDC Special Pay and from UDC/UDC Special Pay to the post of Tax Assistant. The next avenue of promotion to the eligible UDCs/UDC Special Pay and the Tax Assistants was "Inspector", a selection post in the Executive Cadre. 3. The contesting parties to these writ petitions were originally appointed as Lower Division Clerks (LDCs) in the Customs Department in the year 1991. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. In the year 1992, a new cadre called "Data Entry Operators" (DEOs) was created in the Department. The recruitment, scale of pay, promotion, etc. thereof were governed by the Electronic Data Processing Discipline (Group E Technical Posts) (EDP Rules). The sanctioned strength of the DEOs was 114. The cadre was divided into four grades, viz. Grade A, Grade B, Grade C and Grade D, with enhanced scales of pay. The EDP Rules provided for promotion from Grade A to Grade B, Grade B to Grade C and Grade C to Grade D. The creation of the new cadre, which was basically a computer-oriented, became necessary when the first phase of computerisation was introduced in the Customs Department in the year 1987. 5. When options were called for from the LDCs to be appointed as DEO Grade A, 62 LDCs exercised their option to be appointed as DEO Grade A and the rest of 52 vacancies were filled by inter- collectorate transfers. The writ petitioners were one amongst those LDCs who opted to be inducted as DEO Grade A. 6. In 2000, the entire Department was computerized with the introduction of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) and all the staff of the Department irrespective of the post/cadre were exposed to the computer training and computer operation. 7. In the year 2002, the Ministry brought about a major restructuring of the cadres in the Customs and Central Excise Departments and all the posts in the ministerial cadre (UDCs Special Pay, UDCs, Tax Assistants, LDCs) and the DEO Grades in the technical cadre were integrated and two new cadres were created, viz. (i) Senior Tax Assistants (Rs.5000-8000) and (ii) Tax Assistants (Rs.4000-6000). 8. The erstwhile Ministerial posts such as Assistants, Tax Assistants, Upper Division Clerks Special Pay (UDCs Spl.Pay) and the technical posts such as DEO Grade B and DEO Grade C were merged together and redesignated as Senior Tax Assistants. Similarly, the posts of UDC, DEO Grade A and LDC were integrated and redesignated as Tax Assistant. 9. New Recruitment Rules were issued, viz. Central Excise and Customs Department Senior Tax Assistant (Group C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "STA RR 2003") and Central Excise and Customs Department Tax Assistant (Group C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "TA RR 2003"). Under STA RR, 2003, the seniority in the redesignated post, viz. Senior Tax Assistant was fixed in the following order: I. Senior Tax Assistant (Rs.5000-8000): 1.Assistants (Rs.5000-8000) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.DEOs Grade C (Rs.5000-8000) 3.DEOs Grade B (Rs.4500-7000) 4.Tax Assistants (Rs.4500-7000) 5.UDCs Special Pay 10. The inter-se placement of the Assistants and DEOs Grade 'C' was fixed as per the date from which they had actually been appointed to these grades on regular basis without altering their inter se placement in the respective category. Similarly, the inter se placement of DEOs Grade B and Tax Assistants was fixed as per the date of their regular appointment to the respective grade without altering their inter se placement in respective category. UDCs with Special Pay were directed to be placed below Assistants, DEOs Grade C and Grade D and Tax Assistants. Also provided that they should pass the required departmental tests in computer training within two years. 11. Under TA RR, 2003, the seniority for the redesignated post, viz. Tax Assistant was fixed as under: II. Tax Assistant (Rs.4000-6000): 1.UDCs 2.DEOs Grade A 3.LDCs The inter se seniority among these candidates has been fixed in accordance with the date of appointment in the respective post. Thus, the restructure of the cadre resulted in the merger/integration of LDCs, UDCs and Tax Assistants of the ministerial cadre and the DEOs of the technical cadre. 12. As stated already, the employees who were working in the pre-restructured ministerial cadres of UDC, UDC Special Pay, Steno Grade II, Steno Grade III, Women Searcher and Tax Assistant were eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector (Preventive Officer). A group of UDCs of the Department, who are working as Preventive Officers on ad hoc basis, challenged Rule 5(ii) of the STA RR, 2003 and Rule 4(4) of the TA RR, 2003 prescribing the inter se seniority among the erstwhile ministerial cadre staff and technical cadre staff inasmuch as in the restructured cadre they were ranked junior to those employees who were promoted as DEO Grade C and DEO Grade B. The erstwhile UDCs claim that the inter se seniority among the erstwhile ministerial cadre and the technical cadre in the restructured cadres should be fixed on the basis of the date of joining the Department as LDCs. 13. The Tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. CHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARANI (1981 4 SCC 130), held that the seniority principle stipulated in the impugned notification is unfair to the ministerial cadre of the Department and considering any other date than the date of initial entry into the service as LDC is discriminatory and arbitrary and, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordingly, quashed Rule 5(ii) of STA RR, 2003 and Rule 4(4) of TA RR, 2003. The Tribunal directed the department to apply fair, just and rational principle in determining the seniority while integrating the different cadres and to evolve an acceptable solution. The department was further directed to have a consultation process with the employees representative/association concerned and recast the seniority rule. 14. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the DEOs and even the Union of India have filed these writ petitions wherein the LDCs/UDCs/Tax Assistants have filed impleadment petitions to implead them as party respondents and the same having been ordered, they were brought on record as party respondents. During the pendecy of these writ petitions, some of the Senior Tax Assistants/UDCs were promoted as Inspector subject to the result of these writ petitions and hence such promoted candidates have also filed impleadment petitions to implead them as party respondents and the said petitions having also been allowed, they were also brought on record as party respondents. Thus, this common order is passed in the presence of all the parties concerned. 15. For the sake of convenience, Data Entry Operators either they have filed writ petitions or they got impleaded themselves as party respondents on their promotion, are referred to as petitioners, LDCs/UDCs/Tax Assistants, who were either originally impleaded as party respondents or who came on record by virtue of impleadment petitions are referred to as respondents and official respondents (who have also filed W.P.Nos.21692 to 21694 of 2004) are referred to as official respondents. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued that the restructuring of the cadres by merging/integrating the posts in a Government Department is the prerogative of the Government and essentially it is a policy decision of the Government. The scope of judicial review of such policy decision is narrow and limited, it being to find out whether all relevant factors were taken into consideration while effecting the merger/integration of the posts. Such policy decision cannot be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution unless and otherwise the new recruitment rules are demonstrated to be arbitrary/unreasonable. Learned senior counsel submitted that in the present case, the Department had taken into consideration all the relevant factors and prescribed the norms for fixing the inter se seniority among the ministerial cadre and the technical cadre. The minimum qualification prescribed for the technical cadre is higher than the minimum qualification prescribed for the ministerial cadre and consequently, the higher scale of pay was prescribed for the technical cadre vis-a-vis the ministerial cadre. All relevant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ factors such as the educational qualifications, nature and responsibilities of duty, powers exercised, pay scale of the posts, etc. were taken into consideration by the Department while prescribing the norms for determining the inter se seniority in restructured cadre. Even assuming that the inter se seniority has been determined purely on the basis of the scale of pay, the same cannot be interfered with inasmuch as the scales of pay were fixed by the Pay Commission on the basis of the nature of the duties and the responsibilities. 17. Learned senior counsel further argued that chances of promotion is not a Fundamental Right and therefore the provisions relating to the inter se seniority in new recruitment rules cannot be quashed on the ground that promotional chances of certain employees were either shrunk or completely lost. Since the new recruitment rules provide for the fixing of inter se placement between ministerial cadre and the technical cadre as per date of regular appointments in the respective grades subject to the condition that inter-se placement in the respective category, the rules governing the inter se seniority are not arbitrary and discriminatory. Lastly, the learned senior counsel submitted that the new recruitment rules were given effect to in other Commissionerates of Customs, but in so far as the Customs Commissionerate in Chennai is concerned, the rules could not be implemented in view of the order passed by the Tribunal. 18. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Customs Department that the cadre restructuring plan has come into existence with the approval of the Cabinet and is a policy decision of the Government. The restructuring plan was aimed at bringing about optimum productivity, induction of Information Technology and creating an officer-oriented assessee- friendly tax regime keeping in pace with the changing time. The restructuring of the cadres and utilisation of the man power is prerogative of the Government. The Government has got the right to amalgamate the departments or bifurcate into more and constitute different categories of posts and there is no vested right in the employees to claim that rules governing their service conditions should be static for ever. 19. It was further argued that the inter-se placement of the employees belonging to the ministerial cadre and technical cadre was done with reference to the scales of pay, which were fixed by the Government according to the duties and the responsibilities attached to the posts. Further, the representations given by various employees' associations were duly considered before finalising the recruitment rules. The promotional prospects of the ministerial cadre employees have become much better after cadre restructuring. While merging/integrating the posts, every https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ care has been taken to ensure that junior employees are not getting more monetary benefits than the senior employees irrespective of the cadre. The law relating to the inter se seniority on merger/integration of posts is well settled. It is only in the absence of any rule specifically providing for inter se seniority, the question of total length of service in the department or the date of initial entry into the regular service of the department would come into play. 20. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argued that the rules governing the inter se placement in the restructured cadres have paved way for the junior DEOs to have a steep march over the senior employees of the erstwhile ministerial cadre. It was submitted that the LDCs who chose to remain in the ministerial cadre are severely prejudiced and affected by the new recruitment rules. In view of the limited number of posts in the erstwhile technical cadre, the LDCs who exercised their option to be appointed as DEOs have earned accelerated promotions in a short span of time whereas, the LDCs, who chose to remain in the same post, were stagnated in the same post due to lack of promotional prospects. The accelerated promotions which the DEOs earned in the erstwhile technical cadre is now put to the disadvantage of the LDCs/UDCs/UDCs Special Pay while fixing the inter se seniority in the restructured cadre. By virtue of the new recruitment rules, the higher posts in the Executive Cadre of the Department would be blocked by the DEOs who are far juniors to the UDCs. 21. It was further argued that when the erstwhile ministerial cadre and the technical cadre were part of the same service and when admittedly the posts of DEO Grade A in the technical cadre were filled up only by drawing the willing LDCs from the ministerial cadre, while merging/integrating the posts of the said two cadres, the inter se placement in the restructured cadre should be determined on the basis of total years of service put in by the respective employees. In other words, the date of joining the service as LDC should be the relevant date for fixing the inter se seniority between the erstwhile ministerial cadre staff and the technical cadre staff. The Department has failed to take into consideration the relevant factors for fixing the inter se seniority, but prescribed the norms for fixing the inter se seniority solely on the basis of the scales of pay, which is against the decisions of the Supreme Court. Scales of pay of the respective grade cannot be and should not be the sole criteria for fixing the inter se seniority on merger/integration of posts. When different posts in the ministerial cadre and the technical cadre are merged/integrated, it is reasonable to take into consideration the original date of entry into service of the Customs Department for fixing the inter se seniority in the restructured cadre. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 22. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the contesting respondents have already been promoted as Preventive Officers on ad hoc basis and as per the present vacancy position, there is no possibility of any of them getting regular promotions within the next two years and, therefore, the gestation period of two years provided in the recruitment rules for the post of Preventive Officers during which UDCs would be eligible for the promotion as Preventive Officer is rendered futile. A peculiar and anomalous situation would arise wherein the respondents who are presently Preventive Officers would be reverted after two years if not regularised within two years and persons who are DEOs Grade A at present would be promoted as Preventive Officers as they would ascend to the post of Senior Tax Assistant by virtue of the seniority provided for in the recruitment rules. Equating the post of UDC with that of DEO for the purpose of merger/integration of posts and fixing the inter