SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN vs UNION OF INDIA — C.A. No. 1243/2022
Case under Section XI-B. Status: DISPOSED.
CNR: SCIN010234302019
Filing Date
05-Jul-2019
Registration No
C.A. No. 1243/2022
Diary Number
23430/2019
Order Date
10-Mar-2022
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2022 INSC 287
Disposal Type
Disposed Off
Data as of 28-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN
Adv. SIBO SANKAR MISHRA (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1]
Respondent(s)
UNION OF INDIA
Adv. MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-8] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-7] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-6] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-5] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-4] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-3] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-2] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-1] MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-9]
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-Mar-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 09-Feb-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 20-Jan-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 11-Jan-2022 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 25-Nov-2021 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Summary of SK Nausad Rahaman v. Union of India (C.A. No. 001243/2022) Court Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Kerala's judgment, rejecting appellants' challenge to the 2018 CBIC circular withdrawing Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICTs) for Central Excise and Customs Inspectors after new Recruitment Rules 2016 came into force. Key Reasoning: Rule 5 of RR 2016 mandates separate cadres for each Cadre Controlling Authority, and Rule 4(ii) of the prior RR 2002—which explicitly permitted ICTs—was notably omitted. The absence of an enabling provision for absorption from external cadres means administrative instructions cannot override the statutory rules, as rules made under Article 309 prevail over executive instructions. Constitutional Note: While upholding the ban, the Court acknowledged substantive equality concerns for women (spousal postings) and disabled persons, directing the Board to revisit the policy to accommodate such cases within constitutional parameters of Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts