Failure to ensure SC safeguards for quota: Tribunal quashes I-T promotion panels

The order was passed on Tuesday by a bench comprising Ramesh Singh Thakur, member (judicial), and Anjali Bhawra, member (administrative), on three connected applications filed by the income tax officials challenging the department’s March 17, 2026, draft panels.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, has quashed fresh draft promotion panels prepared by the Income Tax department after holding that the department had not followed the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court for providing reservation in promotions to scheduled caste (SC) and scheduled tribe (ST) employees.

The lead case, was filed by income tax inspectors Ashish Singal and Shekhar Tomar. The applicants objected to the proposed revision of promotion panels and seniority positions, arguing that the exercise would result in their juniors from reserved categories being considered for promotion ahead of them. (Shutterstock)

The order was passed on Tuesday by a bench comprising Ramesh Singh Thakur, member (judicial), and Anjali Bhawra, member (administrative), on three connected applications filed by the income tax officials challenging the department’s March 17, 2026, draft panels.

The lead case, was filed by income tax inspectors Ashish Singal and Shekhar Tomar. The applicants objected to the proposed revision of promotion panels and seniority positions, arguing that the exercise would result in their juniors from reserved categories being considered for promotion ahead of them.

The March 17 communication had circulated fresh draft select panels for office superintendents for recruitment years 2016-17 to 2025 and income tax inspectors for the same period. It also initiated the process for departmental promotion committees (DPCs) for promotion to income tax inspector for recruitment year 2026. The department had also sought vigilance clearances and objections from employees.

The applicants argued that the department had started applying reservation in promotions without first carrying out the exercises required by the Supreme Court, including determining whether reservation was justified on the basis of inadequate representation and addressing the creamy-layer principle.

The department defended the exercise, saying it was acting on the basis of the Supreme Court’s January 2022 judgment in Jarnail Singh-II and the department of personnel and training’s (DoPT) April 12, 2022 instructions. A reservation roster committee had been constituted to collect cadre-wise data and prepare rosters.

According to the department, the committee submitted its report in December 2025 and draft panels were circulated on January 5, 2026. However, after employees raised objections, particularly over the issue of “own merit” pending before the Supreme Court, the department withdrew those panels and ordered the rosters to be re-examined. A fresh exercise followed, with revised rosters and draft panels submitted in February before the March 17 panels were circulated.

The tribunal, however, found that the department had not complied with the legal requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in M Nagaraj, Jarnail Singh-I, Jarnail Singh-II, State of Punjab vs Devinder Singh and Kawaljeet Singh. It consequently quashed the March 17 draft panels and related orders.

The bench also rejected the department’s reliance on DoPT instructions and administrative decisions where they were inconsistent with binding Supreme Court judgments. The tribunal noted that the department had itself earlier proposed approaching the Punjab and Haryana high court for permission to implement the April 12, 2022 instructions, subject to the Supreme Court’s decision. It later changed its position following a meeting involving departmental officials and the additional solicitor general and proceeded with revised panels in January 2026. Those panels were subsequently withdrawn after objections from general-category candidates, before the exercise was started again.

The tribunal further said the department could not avoid the creamy-layer principle merely on the ground that specific criteria or guidelines had not yet been framed. It held that the executive must lay down appropriate criteria for applying the principle, as is done in cases concerning OBC reservation.

The CAT allowed the three applications and set aside the March 17 panels. It made clear, however, that the Income Tax department could undertake the promotion exercise again after full and strict compliance with the legal requirements laid down by the Supreme Court. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.