CH. A. RAHMAN KHAN (MEMBER).--The appellant Mr. Shamsuddin Shah, Officiating Assistant Director of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise) has come in appeal against the Gazette Notification No. 240-A.C.E. 1/84, dated 9-8-1984. The extracts of the notification are given below:- "(Tb BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF PAKISTAN PART I).
Government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue Islamabad, the 9th August, 1984.
Notification (Customs Excise Establishment)
No. 240/ACE.I/84.-- The following Principal Appraisers (B-17) are appointed as Assistant Collector (B-17) in the Customs and Excise Group and posted as shown against each with immediate effect and until further orders: S.No.Name Posting on promotion (1)Syed Saleem AkhtarAsst. Controller, Office of the Controller of Customs Valuation, Karachi.
(2)Syed Rashid-uz- ZamanSecond Secretary, C.B.R., Islamabad.
(3)Mr. Zia-ul-Haq Awan Camp commandant, Date of Training (Customs s Excise), Karachi.
(4)Mr. M. Zafar Farooq Second Secretary, C.B.R., Islamabad.
(5)Mr. Ahmad Ullah Assistant ControllerCustoms Valuation, Karachi.
(6)Mr. M.W. Warst Second Secretary, C.B.R., Islamabad.
(2) The above promotions are on purely temporary basis and shall not confer any right of seniority.
(Sd.)
(Farrakh Qayyum), Second Secretary."
2. The learned counsel, for the appellant contended that the officers shown at serial Nos. 2 to 6 and promoted vide the impugned order ranked junior to him in the final seniority list of Appraisers issued by Custom House, Karachi as it stood on 22-7-1976. The name of the appellant is shown at serial . No. 38 whereas, all the other respondents are shown junior to him at different serials below the appellant. It was submitted that the appellant, joined the service as Chemical Assistant, Class II Non-gazetted on 29-11-1963 under the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Karachi. He was later appointed as an Apprasier with effect from 18-3-1965 as a result of the competitive examination held by the Federal Public Service Commission in 1965, in a scale which was subsequently equated with Grade-13.On the introduction of the National Pay Scales. A Writ Petition Nay. 221 of 1977 was filed before the Sind High Court by one of the Appraisers for finalizing the seniority list of the Appraisers of the Customs House, Karachi and the said Court was pleased to direct the Custom House, Karachi to issue a final seniority list. The action on Court's judgment was taken vide Memo.
No. 837-42/ 77-Estt. , dated 30-5-1979 and this final seniority list was to be considered effective as on 27,-7-1976. In this final seniority list, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 have been duly shown junior to the appellant while respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were not yet even placed on the seniority list of Appraisers. Respondent-j Nos. 8 to 10 were Superintendents of Land Customs in Grade-16 before their promotion by the impugned order and all of them originally belonged to a different category of subordinate staff. The appellant was promoted as Principal Appraiser with effect from 18-3-1979 in Grade-16 against a regular vacancy. Respondents 3 to 5 were promoted to officiate as Principal Appraiser as a stop-gap measure as admitted by the learned Deputy Attorney General before the Honourable Sind High Court during the course of hearing of the writ petition mentioned above. It was, therefore, contended that respondents 3 to 5 remained junior to the appeal as shown in the final seniority list.
3. During the above period another development took place and in pursuance of the President's Order, dated 2-10-1978, the posts of Principal Appraisers and Appraisers were collectively upgraded from Grade-16 and 13 respectively to Grade-17. Incidently the name of the appellant also appeared senior to all the respondents in the Notification No. 155-ACE-I/80, dated 15-9-1980, although this may not be quoted as a regular seniority list but the fact remained that the names were taken from the above quoted final seniority list in their order of merit as show there. Respondents Nos. 8 to 10 were promoted as Superintendents, Land Customs to Grade-16 with effect from 25-8-1979 and 19-2-1981 and so stood junior to the appellant in his capacity as Principal Appraiser.
Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 joined the Subordinate service in the Office of Controller of Customs Valuation, Karachi. They were appointed as Appraisers with effect from 7-3-1973 as a consequence of the policy decision vide Central Board of Revenue Letter No. 1(20)--R3/68(ACE-II), dated 27th January, 1973. Whereas, according to the conditions laid down in the above quoted letter, they, should have been regularised with effect from the date of their passing the departmental examination which falls on 11-12-1976, they were regularised from the date of temporary promotion i.e. 7th March, 1973. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were later promoted as Principal Appraiser vide Central Board of Revenue letter, dated 21st March, 1981 ante-dating their promotion with effect from 16th May, 1978. This was against the spirit of the decision of the Sind High Court in the Writ Petition No. 221 of 1977 and, therefore, their promotion orders are clearly unlawful, ultra vires and must be struck down.
The promotion dates of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are as follows: - AppraiserPrincipal AppraiserA.C.
Respondent No.327-12-196310-9-1976 9-8-1984 Respondent No. 421-2-19646-12-1978 9-8-1984 Respondent No. 510-11-196416-5-1978 9-8-1984
4. However, the first promotion of respondents 3,4 and 5 as given above from Examiners to Appraisers was purely on ad hoc basis and not against regular vacancies. Since, they were the promotees from the previous job of Examiners they could not be regularised against the vacancies of direct recruits. They, therefore, had to wait till the vacancies in their line of promotion as per rules.
This fact is very clearly given in their appointment Letter No. S-37-19/64. Estt. , dated 10th November, 1964, which is reproduced below:- CUSTOMS HOUSE KARACHI Dated 10 November, 1964 (Afternoon)
OFFICE ORDER NO. 145/64 The Central Board of Revenue vide their Office Order No. 23/64, dated 30th October, 1964 have appointed the following Examining Officer/Office Superintendents as Officiating Appraisers on purely temporary and replaceable basis in the Karachi Customs House. They are directed to resume their duties immediately:- (1)Mr.Mirza Maqsood Baig -do-
(2) Zafar Farooq -do-
(3) Malik Rais Ahmed Khan-do-
(4) Abdul Haseeb -do-
(5) Shujauddin Ahmad Office Superintendents
(6) Rafiqullah Khan -do-
(7) M. Asrar -do-
(8) Hamid Hussain -do-
(9) A.S. Syed -do- Sd/- Abid Hussain T.P.K., C.S.D.
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS."
However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that during this period the seniority list issued by the Collector of Customs, Karachi clearly shows the appellant senior to respondents 3,4 and 5 and, therefore, it was not felt appropriate to make any representation in this regard. It was further contended that it was the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Karachi who was the authorised officer (vide ESTACODE page 730, Rule 9 of the Customs and Excise Group) to issue the seniority list for the Appraisers. Even when the posts had been upgraded to Grade-17, it would have been appropriated for the Central Board of Revenue only to re-issue the same seniority list of Appraisers i.e. The final seniority list issued by Collector of Customs, Karachi on 27-7-1976 under the directive of Sind High Court because their jobs were not upgraded. As a matter of fact, it was only for the purpose of pay that they were given Grade-17 whereas they continued to perform their original duties i.e, that of Appraisers and principal Appraisers. It was argued that even if the C.B.R. Did consider it appropriate to issue the seniority list of those Appraisers and Principal Appraisers who were placed in Grade-17, their seniority could not be disturbed on any count asth shown in the seniority list issued by the Collector of Customs which is effective from 27-7-1976. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following reference in this respect: - (1)1983 PLC (C.S.) 1071 (2)1983 PLC (C.S.) 1205 (3)1982 PLC (C.S.) 867 (4)1984 SCMR 286
5. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as a consequence of another directive issued by the President, the seniority list of Principal Appraisers and the Superintendents, Land Customs was to be kept combined. But instead of preparing a combined seniority list which should have shown the Principal Appraisers and the Superintendents, Land Customs together according to their comparative promotion dates, the seniority list of both these categories were kept separate. However, the promotion of the individuals otherwise borne on separate seniority list was ordered to be made in turn from each seniority list on occurrence of vacancies which created further confusion. As a result of this, the senior-most officer among the Principal Appraisers could be promoted earlier as compared to the Superintendents, Land Customs because a vacancy was allocated for them and a Superintendent, Land Customs, who otherwise would be senior to the above promotee would be left out or vice versa. This system has created imbalances in the seniority list and further complications. It is as a result of this system that respondents Nos. 8, 9 and 10 although promoted later than the appellant as Superintendent, Land Customs were promoted Assistant Commissioner on 9-8-1984 whereas the appellant is still awaiting 'his promotion order.
6. In view of the above arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant contended in the interest of fair-play and justice, therefore, the following unlawful actions taken by the respondents are liable to be struck down:-
(a) That respondents 3, 4 and 5 could not be confirmed as Appraisers from the date of initial promotion unless there was a vacancy available in their own line of promotion as per rules.
(b) Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 could not be confirmed without fulfilling the conditions laid down in the basic policy Letter No. 1(20)-R3/ 68(ACE-II), dated 27th January, 1973.
(c) The final seniority - list issued by the Collector of Customs, Customs House, Karachi on 30-5- 1979 should be considered as final and if the C.B..R. Wanted to issue another seniority list, they should not alter the facts which are already given in the final seniority list of 1979 issued under the directive of Sind High Court.
(d) Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 could not be given retrospective seniority as Principal Appraisers because that pertains to the period when the case was subjudiced in the Sind High Court.
(e) The seniority of Principal Appraisers and Superintendents, Land Customs should have been maintained in a combined seniority list instead of three separate parts as at present,
7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 7 gave out the background which necessitated the issue of Letter No. 1(20)-R3/68(ACE-I1), dated 27th January, 1973. According to this letter the ministerial staff of the Custom Valuation Branch were to be given the benefit of promotion on 121$ of posts of Appraisers out of 19 posts authorised in this Branch. This was basically to remove the sense of deprivation which had persisted in the ministerial staff. "Although it was laid down in this letter that the ministerial staff would be allowed to appear in the promotional examination held by the Customs House, Karachi so that two qualified candidates from among them, who fulfil other prescribed conditions as well, be appointed as Appraisers by the Controller of Customs Valuation in that organization, as a further concession. Respondents 6 and 7 were promoted as Appraiser with effect from 27-1-1973 and 7-3-1973 without first qualiffying the promotional examination as laid down in the above quoted letter. Consequent upon their passing the promotional examination in 1976 both the respondents were confirmed as Appraiser against 2 out of 19 permanent posts of Appraisers with effect from 17th March, 1973 vide Controller of Customs Valuation Letter No. 24(1)-- Estt/76/23796, dated 11-12-1976. It was submitted that tilt then all the 19 posts of Appraisers who were supposed to be working in the Customs Valuation Branch were borne on the strength of Collector of Customs, Karachi and matters related to their recruitment/seniority/promotion were controlled centrally by the Collector of Customs, Karachi. This was the first time that any vacancies were specifically allocated to the Controller of Customs Valuation, Karachi. Since the creation of the Branch of the Custom Valuation, it was working under the control of Collector of Customs Therefore, no separate arrangements were ever considered necessary to recruit this additional strength of Appraisers authorised for the Customs Valuation Branch. No effort was ever made at any stage to designate those working in these vacancies as deputationist, etc. It was contended by the learned counsel that any additional concession given to the respondents 6 and 7 were merely an effort to redress their grievances regarding their share of promotion to the posts of Appraisers.
These respondents could be helped only by advancing their date of promotion since the vacancies existed without any dispute.
8. It was contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 7 that in view of his representation regarding his promotion to the post of Principal Appraiser, the Central Board of Revenue decided to promote the respondents as Principal Appraiser vide their Notification No. 50-ACE.1/81, dated 25th March, 1981 retrospectively- with effect from 16th May, 1978. The respondents were also given Grade-17 with effect from 1st March, 1979, the date on which all Appraisers and Principal Appraisers were upgraded to Grade-17 by Presidential directive. It was, therefore, submitted that respondents 6 and 7 stood senior to the appellant as Principal Appraiser, the date of promotion of the appellant as Principal Appraiser being 18-3-1979 as against the date of promotion of both the respondents which is 16th May, 1978. This cannot be disputed as it was done under the authority of the Establishment Division. It was contended that the promotion of the respondent is lawful and has been made with due care to the existing rules and regulations which cannot be challenged
9. The learned counsel for the appellant at this stage contended that in view of the arguments of the respondents given above, it will be worthwhile to quote Letters No.2/29/76.-ACE-I1, dated 4th July, 1978, No 2-29-76-ACE-II, dated 25th February, 1980 and No.2/29176--ACE-I1 dated 25th March, 1980, the extracts of which are given below--- "Government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue Islamabad, the 4th July, 1978.
No.2/29/76-ACE-11 To The Controller of Customs Valuation, Customs House (2nd floor), Karachi Subject:- Recruitment rules/Promotion of ministerial staff to the executive cadre.
I am directed to refer to the correspondence resting with your D.O. Letter No. 71(5)-Estt./76!3206, dated 14th March, 1978, on the subject mentioned above, and to say that the question whether the Valuation Department should function as a separate Department and the ministerial staff of that Department should be made eligible for promotion to the post of Valuation Officer (Grade-13) was considered by the Board-in-Council at its meeting held on the 7th June, 1978, After considering the various pros and cons, it was decided that the Valuation Department should function as a separate Department for the present and that 25% the existing vacancies/posts of Valuation Officer should be filled by promotion of the ministerial staff (Graduate) of the Valuation Department in accordance with the existing recruitment rules for the posts of Appraiser in the Customs House, Karachi.
(Sd.)
(Ghulam Nabi)
Second Secretary."
"Government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue Islamabad, the 25th February, 1980.
No. 2/29/76-ACE-II.
To The Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Customs House, Karachi.
Subject: Establishment matters relating to the seniority, promotion and transfer of Appraiser/ Valuation Officers.
I am directed to say that as a consequence of representations made by the ministerial staff of Customs Valuation Organisation for their promotion to the posts of Appraiser/ Valuation Officer, a meeting of the Board-in-Council was held on 10-2-1980 to consider the demands of those ministerial servants. The Board has arrived at the following decisions on the subject noted above:--
(i) Cadre of Valuation Officer in the Valuation Department and Appraisers in the Custom House, Karachi/ Collectorates of CE & CL should have a unified seniority as Appraisers with effect from the date of appointment /promotion to that post. Collector (Appraisement) and Controller of Valuation are hereby asked to prepare a combined list.
(ii) The Establishment matters including posting and transfer should be dealt with by Collector of Customs (Appraisement) who should consult Controller of Valuation/ Collector, C.E.&.L.C concerned, for posting and transfer, where necessary.
(iii) Seniority of ministerial staff of Collectorate of Customs (Appraisment) and Valuation Organization should also be combined and promotion against departmental quota should be made on the basis of combined seniority.
(iv) The promotions etc. Of the ministerial staff, already made, should not be affected.
(v) Appraisers should be posted in the Valuation Department by rotation, for a specific period.
(2) It is requested that above decision of the Board may be implemented and a report in the matter furnished to the Board.
(Sd.)
(Abdul Aziz)
Second Secretary Copy to Controller of Customs Valuation, Sharif Palace, 5 and 6th floor, Outram Road Haqqani Chowk, Karachi for information.
(Sd.)
(Abdul Aziz)
Second Secretary."
"Government of Pakistan Central Board of Revenue Islamabad, the 25th March, 1980.
No.2/29/76-ACE-I1 To The Collector of Customs, (Appraisement Collectorate), Custom House, Karachi.
Subject: Establishment matters relating to the Seniority, promotion and transfer of Appraiser/ Valuation Officers.
In continuation of Board's letter of even number, dated 25th February, 1980, on the above subject, I am directed to say that in a subsequent meeting of the Board-in-Council held on 11-3-1980 it has been decided to modify decision at (i) and (iv) of the above quoted letter to the extent that theth existing Valuation Officers may be asked for option for posting as Appraiser and after they are cleared for such posting their seniority in the list of Appraisers will be with effect from the date they are cleared for posting as Appraiser.
(2) It is requested that action may be taken, accordingly and a report in the matter furnished to the Board.
(Sd.)
(Abdul Aziz)
Second Secretary.
Copy to the Controller of Customs Valuation, Sharif Palace (5th and 6th floors) Outram Road, Haqqani Chowk, Karachi for information.
(Sd.)
(Abdul Aziz)
Second Secretary."
10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case regarding the Controller of Customs Valuation having separate entity was finally decided vide Letter No.2/29/76-ACE-II, dated 2nd September, 1980. Therefore, it could be safely presumed that till the issuance of this letter, the recruitment and promotion of the Appraisers working in the Customs House as well as in the Controller of Custom Valuation Branch was kept combined under the Collector of Customs, Karachi. Therefore, all the deviations in the basic policy letter i.e. For the initial promotion of the ministerial staff of the Custom Valuation Branch vide, Letter No.1(20)-R3/68(ACE-II), dated 27th January, 1973 were made to suit the interests of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 only. According to this basic policy letter these two respondents should have been promoted only after having passed the promotional examination. But they were promoted Appraisers without passing the examination, which they could not even clear within the prescribed period of two years. They were confirmed with effect from their initial promotion i.e. 1973 instead of 1976 which should have been the correct date of the respondents qualified the promotional examination in 1976 and not in 1973. Further, it was contended that during the pendency .Of a Writ Petition No. 221 of 1977 in the Sind High Court although it was admitted by the Respondent-Department that no promotions had either been made as Principal Appraiser or would be made till a combined seniority list is issued under the Court's order. The promotion orders of both respondents Nos. 6 and 7 vide C.B.R. Letter No. 50- ACE.1/81, dated 25-3-1981 were issued as soon as the Writ was vacated. No consideration was given to the final seniority list issued by the Collector of Customs, Karachi vide their Letter No. 837-42/77- Estt., dated 30-5-1979. In that seniority list both the respondents are clearly shown junior to the appellant. All this goes to show that there was a conscious effort to benefit these two respondents only with all possible variations that could be brought to bear in this regard. Under the normal circumstances, it can be easily established that directly recruited Appraisers could not be promoted as Principal Appraiser before minimum of 12 to 14 years of service as Appraiser. Whereas in the case of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 their promotion as Principal Appraisers although ordered in 1981 stood retrospectively effective from 16th May, 1978 i.e. Within a period of~ five years only even if we consider their promotion as Appraiser from 1973 as valid. How for can this be considered logical and fair when viewed in the context of the overall period for the promotion of Appraiser to the pout of Principal Appraiser as stated earlier. It, therefore, only stands to reason that this manipulation of orders to benefit respondents Nos. 6 and 7 particularly in the garb of helping the ministerial staff almost over-right does not stand the test of justice and fair-play. They must have their promotions as decided vide Letter No. 1(20)-R3/68(ACE-II), dated 27th January.1973 but not by violating the basic policy. It would be only appropriate for them to digest their share of promotion within 12J$ but must abide by the policy laid down to implement this. The, retrospective promotion order of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 to the post of Principal Appraiser as ordered vide letter, dated 25-3-1981 is a clear infringement of the commitment given by the Respondent-Department to the Sind High Court. Thus, it is not difficult to understand why respondents Nos. 6 and d were given retrospective seniority as Principal Appraisers dating-back to 1978. The considerations governing the ante-date are not understood except in the light of the fact that the idea was only to make respondents Nos.
6 and 7 senior to the appellant. This cleary shows mala fide intention and, therefore, must be struck down severely.
11. In view of the above arguments, we are of the view that the seniority of Appraisers in the Customs House, Karachi has remained a matter of every body's concern for a long time. The recruitment and the promotion matters of the Appraisers also not regulated as it should have been done according to rules. The creation of a new office i.e. Custom Valuation Branch which was initially kept under the control of the Collector of Customs, Karachi created further confusion. No clear line was laid down regarding the posting of Appraisers from Custom House, Karachi to the authorised posts to Custom Valuation. This matter actually came to the forefront only when Writ Petition No. 221 of 1977 was filed in the Sind High Court who were pleased to order Collector of Customs, Karachi to issue a final seniority list which was done vide Letter No. 837-42/77-Estt. , dated 30-5-1979. Therefore, this seniority list should be taken as the only authorised document in this regard.
12. We do agree that the ministerial staff of the Custom Valuation Branch should be given their share of 121$ i.e. 2 out of 19 authorised posts of Appraisers. In this regard, it will be only appropriate to follow the policy Letter No. 1(20)-R3/68(ACE-11), dated 27th January, 1973. Further relaxation and exemptions given in respect of respondents No. 6 and 7 are evidently a negation of this considered policy and, therefore, have created unbounded confusion, which has resulted in this litigation. We, therefore, strongly feel that these letters be disregarded and cancelled. The promotion of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 be regulated according to the above quoted policy letter with all its implications. Accordingly respondents Nos. 6 and 7 should be confirmed only from the date they have qualified the promotional examination i.e. In 1976 and not from their initial appointment i.e. In 1973. In fact we do not wish to create another confusion to disallow their initial appointment in 1973, which, according to this policy letter, will not be held correct. Their further promotions should also be regulated in comparison with the other Appraisers working in the Custom House, Karachi at that time. We do not consider it appropriate to give ante-date seniority to respondents Nos. 6 and 7 on their promotion to the posts of Principal Appraiser vide C.B.R. Notification No. 50-ACE.I/81, dated 25th March, 1981. This is a period, which relates to the matter being sub-judice in the Sind High Court when Writ Petition No. 221 of 1977 was filed by one of the Appraisers. The promotion of respondents Nos. 6 and 7 should be considered from the date they actually started working as Principal Appraiser which in this case can, at best, be the date after the decision of the Writ Petition No. 221 of 1977 i.e. 30-5-1979.
13. We direct that the seniority of the Principal Appraisers and the Superintendents, Land Customs, should be maintained in a combined seniority list according to their date of promotion as Principal Appraisers or Superintendents in their own respective branches. The promotion of individuals borne on this list should be made strictly according to this seniority list. No separate seniority list should be maintained henceforth as being done previously.
14. It was stated at the bar that the Central Board of Revenue is preparing another seniority list which is likely to be issued in the near future. We direct that before issue of this new seniority list, the following steps must be taken into consideration:-
(a) The vacancies of direct recruits versus promotees be calculated according to the laid down percentage.
(b) All promotions must be strictly made according to these calculations.
(c) No one from either category should be confirmed against the authorised vacancies of another category.
(d)Where ever there is any deviation from the seniority list issued by the Collector, Custom House, Karachi i.e. Issued on 30-5-1979, a thorough probe must be made before the final decision is taken to change the entries as shown in that seniority list.
15. As far as this appeal is concerned, we declare that the appellant, in the cadre of Appraisers and Principal Appraisers, is senior to respondents Nos. 3 and 7, and is also senior to respondents Nos. 8 to 10 in the cadre of Principal Appraisers/ Superintendents. Consequently, we direct that the appellant be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Collector from the date respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were promoted as such, and if approved for promotion, he be placed senior to these respondents in the cadre of Assistant Collectors and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits.
16. This order will mutatis mutandis apply to Appeal No. 101(R)/86 by Iftahullah Khan, for the same reasons.
17. The appeal is disposed of as above. Parties to be informed accordingly. These orders are ex parte against respondents Nos. 6 to 10.
JUSTICE SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN).-- I entirely agree with my learned brother. The conclusion arrived at by him is further supported by para. 9 of Office Memorandum No. 5/2/75- ARC, dated the 9th May, 1975 printed at page 729 of 1983-ESTACODE under serial number 3. This, inter alia, requires the Central Board of Revenue to prepare gradation lists of all officers in Grade-16 above. The list is to be prepared grade-wise. Since the word 'grade' has been omitted from the Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), the list is to be prepared Basic Pay Scale-wise. An anamoly does exist as a result of upgradation of the post of Principal Appraiser to B-17 for a small period. That would, however, not hinder the working and compliance of para 9 ibid. The list of Principal Appraisers, etc. Is to be prepared as if the post of principal Appraiser was never upgraded to B-17. No doubt,. This para provides that the seniority lists of Grade-15 and below (now B-15 and below) is to be prepared by the Collectors of Customs, nevertheless, it would not be an illegality if, besides that list, the Central Board of Revenue gets prepared the list of B-15 and below persons as well, who are eligible for promotion to B-16, for their own convenience. This will be, besides the lists which each Collector of Customs and Central Excise will prepare of persons subordinate to him.
18. It was half-heartedly argued that the promotions from different categories should be made in proportion to the cadre strength, but,, this stand is not borne out from the Office Memorandum, referred to above. It is not possible for us to read this provision here on the analogy of another cadre where specific provision does exist.
19. I also fully agree with para. 15 of the proposed order, inasmuch as it is in line with the principles which have been formulated by my learned brother.