- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 44162 OF 2016 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: M.AJJANNA, S/O SHRI.MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, R/O NEAR AMEER RETIRED POSTMAN HOUSE, JANATA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, CHALLAKERE-577 522, DIST. CHITRADURGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.T.C.GUPTA., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 3. THE PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA AND GOA REGION, C.R.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.S.R.DODAWAD, CGSC., FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2016 IN O.A.NO.1222/2013 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH AT ANNEXURE-D AND MEMORANDUM DATED 28.8.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A AND PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING ALONG WITH IA NO.1/2021 FOR DIRECTION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25.04.2016 in O.A. No.1222/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, whereby the OA filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the Tribunal by stating in Paragraphs-7 & 8 as under:- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 “7. Pursuant of the direction of the Tribunal review DPCs were held by the respondents and they reviewed the promotion granted with effect from 10.02.1995. The OM dated 28.08.2013 was issued by the respondents following review DPC and after taking in consideration representation received to the draft memo dated 09.05.2013. The validity of the OM dated 28.08.2013 have been examined in detail by this Tribunal in OA No. 867, 868 and 869/2013 and this Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.2016 has held that the OM dated 28.08.2013 issued by respondent pursuant to the holding of the review DPCs and in terms of the earlier direction of the Tribunal dated 17.08.2005 is in order. Therefore, the contention made by the applicant already stands covered by the aforesaid judgment in OA No. 868-869/2013. 8. Accordingly, the present OA is also disposed in terms of the judgment of this Tribunal dated 22.04.2016 in OA No. 867, 868 and 869/2013. No order as to costs.” 2. Though the OA was disposed of, the petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order. The submission of Mr.T.C.Gupta Advocate is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the year 1995. He was promoted to the post of Income Tax Inspector on 26.12.2005. The next promotion post is that of Income Tax Officer. The Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 Income Tax Officer contemplates a Departmental Examination. The same was held in the year 2007. The petitioner passed the examination with 48.61 marks as the petitioner was granted the benefit of concession marks being a reserved category candidate. Otherwise, the general candidate is required to pass the examination with 50% marks. There is no dispute that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer on 28.07.2015. 3. The submission of Mr. Gupta is that, the petitioner having been promoted as per his seniority, he is required to be promoted as per his due date, and his promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer need to be advanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner in fact was promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer as per his own seniority relatable to reserved candidates in the grade of Inspector. According to him, no junior to the petitioner belonging to the reserved category has superseded the petitioner. He do clarify that, no candidate belonging to unreserved category, who was below the petitioner, has been - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 promoted to the post of Income Tax Officer. This submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is contested by Mr. Gupta by stating, the person who was junior to the petitioner, and who has secured more than 50 marks was given promotion on his own merit. The submission made has no merit. The fact that the petitioner had secured 48.16% marks in the Departmental Examination, which is less than 50% marks, the promotion cannot be said to be on own merit. In that sense, the promotion was on the basis of the relaxed standards. Even otherwise, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner got promotion as per his seniority amongst the reserved category candidates. The submission of Mr. Gupta that the petitioner’s promotion need to be advanced from the date to be calculated by the respondent, cannot be accepted for the simple reason, the petitioner having secured less than 50% his promotion need to be held on relaxed standards amongst reserved candidates. The reliance placed by Mr. Gupta on the advice given by the DoPT dated 24.07.2007 has been seen. Suffice to state, the said advice clarifies that to determine whether an SC/ST candidate in the zone of consideration can be promoted or not when there are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 no reserved posts. It is stated that, it should be seen whether the candidate would have been promoted if he did not belong to SC or ST Category. If ‘yes’, he should get promotion, otherwise not. It is clear that the petitioner having availed the relaxation in the standards, he cannot be said to have secured the promotion to the post of Income Tax officer on his own merit. We agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned Tribunal. 5. One of the submission of Mr. Gupta is that, the Paragraph-5 of the DoPT advice must be read to mean that relaxed standards have been given only in respect of age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of concession larger than what is provided for General Category candidates etc., and nothing more. We are unable to agree with the submission made by Mr. Gupta for the reason that the word ‘candidate’ is followed by the word ‘ETC.’ (Et cetera), which encompasses other aspects including relaxed standards relating to Departmental Examination. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 6. We reiterate, the Tribunal is justified in the Paragraph-6 of the order to state as under: “6. The present issue pertains to inter-se seniority between the reserved and unreserved candidates for the post of Income Tax Officer following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.02.1995 in R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab in WP No.79 of 1979 and based on which the post based roster system came into consideration. Based on the said judgment, the promotions granted by the Income Tax department were challenged by some of the officers in OA No. 1724 & 1753-1775/2001 alleging the issue of excess representation belonging to reserved category and seeking direction for implementation of post based roster system with effect from 10.02.1995. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2003 directed the respondents to implement the post based roster system with effect from 10.02.1995 by holding review DPCs and to review the promotion made on or after 10.02.1995 and rearrange the seniority of the officials. Thereafter, the seniority of the ITOs were revised vide memorandum dated 11.07.2003 and 15.06.2004. Aggrieved by the said memorandum Dharmaraj B Khode and Others in OA No. 510/2004 and 740 & 760-767/2004 challenged the same before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2005 directed the respondents to review the promotion made to the cadre of ITO in terms of the direction issued by the Tribunal earlier on 17.01.2003 and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14858-DB WP No. 44162 of 2016 also observation made in the order dated 17.08.2005 It was held therein that the promotion of SC/ST candidates who were declared successful and qualified in the ITO departmental examination on relaxed standard could not be allowed to compete with general candidates as they could not have been promoted based on their own merits and not owing to reservation or relaxed qualification.” 7. We do not see any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed. 8. In view of dismissal of the petition, IA No.1/2021 for Direction does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43