SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN vs UNION OF INDIA — C.A. No. 1243/2022

Case under Section XI-B. Status: DISPOSED.

CNR: SCIN010234302019

DISPOSED

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

Section XI-B

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

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

View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Supreme Court of India All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case