Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar & Ors. vs . Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 30 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi. RA-275/2011 in OA-2528/2011 New Delhi this the 30th day of August, 2011. Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Anil Kumar & Ors. Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ORDER (By Circulation)
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) This Review Application has been made against the order dated 25.07.2011 of this Tribunal in OA-2528/2011 by which the O.A. was dismissed in limine for the reasons given in the impugned order.
2. The review applicant has taken the following grounds in support of the review application:-
(i) that the order has been passed in violation of the judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case Rajnish Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I., 2001(2) SCT 821;
(ii) that it has not taken into account the fact that Laboratory Assistants (Vocational) are not entitled to promotion to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) under 5% quota as their Recruitment Rules (RRs) and the RRs of Laboratory Assistants (General) are different;
(iii) that the respondents had never stated that as per RRs for the post of TGT (Vocational) the essential qualifications are Graduate with diploma and Post Graduate with Degree in teaching, and there was no claim for promotion to the post of TGT (Vocational) or for that matter, 25% quota for the post of TGT (Vocational).
3. From the extract of the judgment of the Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court given at paragraph-5 of the RA, it is clear that any order which the Tribunal gives must be cogent and germane to the subject matter of application. In other words, it has to deal with the issues which have been presented in the application and give a reasoned order.
3.1 The impugned order has dealt with the issue of promotional avenues of Laboratory Assistants and accepted the position which has been clarified by the respondent authority that the applicants could claim promotion to the TGT cadre subject to their satisfying eligibility criteria under 5% promotion quota meant for Laboratory Assistants. The respondent authorities have clarified time and again that the promotion quota is available both to the cadres of the Laboratory Assistants (General) and Laboratory Assistants (Vocational). They have gone to the extent of stating in the order challenged in OA-2528/2011 that three Lab Assistants (Vocational), Mrs. Rachna Bhatia, Mrs. Jyotika Trehan and Mrs. Simmi Mehta have, in fact, been given such promotion. It has been made clear that such of the applicants as fulfill the eligibility criteria meant for the post of TGT would be considered for promotion under the 5% quota. Apart from that, three financial up-gradations are now available to government employees during their service career under the MACP Scheme, which has been introduced on 19.05.2009 effective from 01.09.2008. These facts were taken note of in the impugned order and reasons were given for rejecting the application in limine as the same issues were being agitated by the applicants time and again. Since recruitment of Lab Assistants under 5% quota is for TGTs, and since the respondent authorities have specifically clarified that Laboratory Assistants (Vocational) would be eligible, there was no justification to belabour the point and agitate the issue again.
3.2 The next contention is that they never pressed any claim for 25% quota of promotion to the post of TGT (Vocational). The word TGT (Vocational) appearing on the last sentence of paragraph-3 of the impugned order is a typographical error. It should read as PGT (Vocational). True, there is no post of TGT (Vocational). That they have been pressing for 25% quota in the post of PGT (Vocational) is clear from their averments in the O.A. Paragraph-5(E) of their O.A. which reads as follows:-
Because it is a fact that, the offices of respondents had started the proposal for amendment of the RRs to the post of PGT (Vocational) providing 75% quota for Direct Recruitment and 25% quota for Laboratory Asstt. (Vocational) and the aforesaid proposal remained in by applying upto the highest level and since, it was taking so much time, when the applicants filed the aforesaid OA, the aforesaid process was stopped illegally and even this action is bad in law. Admittedly, the applicants are matriculates with ITI certificates or Senior Secondary (Vocational) certificate holders and would not be eligible for promotion to the post of PGT (Vocational) without having the qualification prescribed for the post.
3.3 The educational reqirement for PGT (Vocational) has been provided by the applicants themselves at paragraph 4.4 of the OA which says that the candidate for the post of PGT (Vocational) should be holder of degree or diploma in relevant trade from a recognized Institution/Board/University with 5 years professional/teaching experience in the field of relevant Technology. From the RRs enclosed to the OA we find the qualification & experience prescribed vary from discipline to discipline such as: engineering degrees/diploma and Post diploma with experience in teaching in Mechanical/Automobile Engineering; Post Graduate Degree for Applied Horticulture and Library Science, etc.
4. We notice that there is a typographical error, the word TGT (Vocational) appearing at the second line of paragraph-4 of the order should read as PGT (Vocational). The phrases respondents have very clearly and they have clarified appearing at the beginning of the sentence and at line-7 in paragraph-4 should be substituted as it is mentioned. The word TGT (Vocational) appearing at the last sentence of Para-3 of the order should be substituted as PGT (Vocational).
5. The impugned order may be rectified accordingly. Subject to these clarifications, we do not find merit in the R.A., which is dismissed in circulation.
(Dr. A.K. Mishra) (Mrs. Meera Chhibber)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vinita/