Veerabhadrappa G.E. vs Union of India and Others

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Rule.

The counsel for Respondents waives service.

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the prayer for interim relief.

The Petitioner was appointed under the order dated 13th October, 2011 as the President of the income tax Appellate Tribunal in the officiating capacity. The order of appointment records that he will continue to act as the President in the officiating capacity till the post is filled up on regular basis. By a further notification/order dated 5th May, 2012, the Government of India directed that the Petitioner shall continue to act as the President of the Tribunal in officiating capacity with effect from 14th October, 2011 upto 31st August, 2012 or until further order, whichever is earlier. On 31st August, 2012, the Government of India passed an order directing that the third Respondent shall assume the office of the income tax Appellate Tribunal in the officiating capacity with effect from 1st September, 2012 (forenoon) and shall continue till the post is filled up on the regular basis.

One of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the law is well settled that one ad-hoc appointee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc appointee. He relied upon the confidential departmental order dated 16th November, 2012.

The only interim relief which is prayed for is for stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the original application filed by the Petitioner for challenging the order of appointment of the third Respondent as well as the aforesaid notification dated 5th May, 2012 has been dismissed. In the impugned order, the Tribunal has noted that the Petitioner did not challenge the order dated 5th May, 2012. On 31st August, 2012, the third Respondent took over the charge of the post of the President. It is noted that the original application was filed belatedly in December, 2012. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the original application, the Tribunal had not granted any interim relief. Now the original application has been dismissed. Thus, the third Respondent is holding the charge of the post from 1st September, 2012 and he continues to hold the charge of the post till today. In any event, the appointment of the Petitioner was purely ad-hoc. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant interim relief. Prayer for interim relief is rejected.