Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ranjit Pal vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 24 April, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/817/2017
Reserved on: 24.04.2025
Pronounced on: 13.05.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Ranjit Pal age 36 years son of Sh. Ramesh Chandra Pal, working
as JBT Teacher working in Govt. Model Senior Secondary School,
Sector 37-B, UT Chandigarh.
2. Ravi Jaiswal age 34 years son of Karam Chand Jaiswal, working
as JBT Teacher in Govt. High School, Maloya Colony, UT
Chandigarh.
3. Anuradha Deyol age 39 years wife of Vinay Kumar daughter of
Amar Nath Deyol, working as JBT Teacher in Govt. Middle
School, Burail, UT Chandigarh.
4. Kavita age 33 years daughter of Raghubir Singh Rawat, working
as JBT Teacher in Govt. High School, Sector 54, UT Chandigarh.
5. Shikha Sharma age 39 years daughter of Tarsem Chand
Sharma, working as JBT Teacher in Govt. Middle School, Sector-
46-D, UT Chandigarh.
6. Sudhir Dubey age 34 years son of Sh. Gian Narayan Dubey,
working as JBT Teacher in Govt. Model High School, Sector-29,
UT Chandigarh.
7. Dilpreet Singh age 34 years son of Late S. Hardayal Singh,
working as JBT Teacher in Govt. High School, Sector-54 D, UT,
Chandigarh.
...Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. I. S. Sidhu)
VERSUS
1. Chandigarh Administration through Advisor to the Administrator,
Education cum-Finance Secretary, UT Chandigarh.
2. Director Instructions Public (Schools) Chandigarh Administration,
UT Chandigarh.
...Respondents
2
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. Arvind Moudgil)
ORDER
Per: ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A):
1. This O.A has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) That records of all the proceedings concerning the case may kindly be summoned and after perusal thereof;
(ii) quash by way of writ of certiorari the criteria No.6 followed by the DPC in its meeting held on 22.12.2014 for considering the candidates from the category of JBTS for promotion to the post of Master/Mistresses and further directions by way of mandamus to the respondents to convene review DPC for considering the cases of the applicants for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress against the available vacancies in the Science Medical and Science Non-Medical Science accordance with the Recruitment Rules and without adopting any other or such like criteria as in para No.6 of Annexure A-1 w.e.f. the date of the D.P.C. held on 22.12.2014 with all consequential benefits like seniority and fixation of pay etc. w.e.f. from the said date, be also may kindly be issued; and
(iii) the attaching of certified/original copies of Annexures A-1 to A-8 may kindly be dispensed with;
and
iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, be granted in favour of the applicants".
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I. The applicants were appointed and joined service as JBT (Junior Basic Training) Teachers under the respondents on 05.12.2009, 07.12.2009, 10.12.2009, 04.12.2009, 05.12.2009, 24.12.2009 and 05.12.2009 respectively. All applicants possess the requisite qualifications for the posts of Master/Mistress under the Chandigarh Education Service 3 (School Cadre) (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1991, as amended via Notification dated 10.03.2009 (Annexure A-2 and A-2/1).
II. The applicants applied for the post of Master/Mistress pursuant to a requisition issued to eligible candidates from different categories. Their names appeared in a list of JBTs obtained by their Union Leader through RTI vide communication dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure A-3 (colly). The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met for consideration of eligible candidates who had applied. First DPC meeting was held on 28.10.2014 (Annexure A-4 (colly)) and the post of Science (Medical) were 34 and Science (Non- Medical) were 68. No recommendations were made for the applicants despite inclusion in the eligibility list. The next meeting of DPC for consideration of cases for promotion to 385 posts of Masters/Mistresses in the ratio 70:15:14:1 across various categories was held on 22.12.2014 (Annexure A-1 (colly)).
III. It is submitted that only 5 (Science-Medical) and 7 (Science-
Non-Medical) posts were recommended for JBT candidates including the applicants.
IV. The applicants, through their Union, made multiple representations and RTI requests on 13.05.2015, 06.07.2015, 22.08.2015 (A-5 to A-8 (Colly): Representations and RTI correspondences).
V. It is submitted that the DPC allegedly introduced a cut -off date of 31.07.2014 requiring 5 years of service, which was not part of the statutory Recruitment Rules (A-2 and A-2/A). 4 Promotion of other candidates with less than 5 years of service as of 31.07.2014. (A-9 (Colly): Office memos showing discriminatory promotions).
VI. The applicants challenge the validity of the DPC's criteria and seek promotion to the post of Master/Mistress (TGP) based on their eligibility, service, and performance. They argue the subsequent selection process (post-DPC decisions) is irrelevant to their grievance.
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed a short reply on 15.12.2017 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I. The respondents submit that the present Original Application is not maintainable as the applicants have approached the Tribunal with unclean hands. It is alleged that the applicants have misconceived the facts, suppressed material information, and misrepresented facts, thereby disentitling them to any relief in equity. The respondents refute the applicants' contention that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) adopted an arbitrary and unauthorized criterion by prescribing five years of service as of the cut -off date, 31.07.2014. It is asserted that such consideration is neither arbitrary nor ultra vires the statutory framework but instead aligns with established administrative guidelines and recruitment policy.
II. The feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress include JBT, NTT, C&V, and SLA/Ministerial staff, as per the Recruitment Rules notified on 06.02.1991, and amended thereafter.5
III. The guidelines adopted by the Chandigarh Administration provide that while evaluating candidates for promotion, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall consider the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the five preceding years, irrespective of the minimum qualifying service prescribed under the Recruitment Rules (Annexure R-1). IV. It is submitted that the applicants (Sr. No. 1 to 7 in the OA) did not complete five years of regular, satisfactory service as on 31.07.2014, the notified cut-off date. Since all applicants were appointed in November/December 2009, they were marginally short of the five-year requirement. Consequently, their ACRs for the full five-year period were not available, and hence their cases were considered but not recommended by the DPC held on 22.12.2014.
V. The respondents deny any allegation of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argue that the criteria adopted by the DPC is consistent with administrative norms and has been uniformly applied to all candidates. VI. The respondents vide their short reply submitted that a fresh meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee is to be convened shortly, and the names of the applicants will be duly considered in accordance with applicable rules and guidelines.
4. The respondents filed affidavit as per direction of this Tribunal vide order dated 16.01.2020 wherein it is submitted as follows:
I. Pursuant to the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure R-1), the respondents were directed to file a specific affidavit justifying the imposition of a five-year 6 regular service condition for promotion to the post of Master/Mistress, especially when such a condition did not find place in the statutory Recruitment Rules. II. The respondents submit that the Chandigarh Administration, while assessing suitability for promotion, has adopted guidelines that require the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) to consider Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding five years, irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed under the Service/Recruitment Rules. These internal administrative guidelines, they assert, are aimed at ensuring a meaningful assessment of an employee's performance over a sustained period. Annexure R-1 (from earlier reply): Copy of relevant promotion guidelines.
III. It is submitted that the applicants, having been appointed in October/November/December 2009, had not completed five years of regular satisfactory service as on the cut -off date i.e., 31.07.2014. Consequently, their full five-year ACRs were not available for evaluation, and hence, their promotion cases could not be recommended by the DPC held on 22.12.2014. The respondents submit that upon completion of five years of regular satisfactory service, all applicants were duly considered and promoted to the posts of Masters/Mistresses. The promotion order was issued under memo No. DSE-UT-S2-11(33)2012 dated 11.04.2018 (Annexure R-2).
5. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings made in the present OA.
7
6. During the hearing, counsel for the respondent was given sufficient opportunity to place on record the proceedings of DPC held on 31.07.2014 whereby according to applicants a cut-off date of 31.07.2014 was introduced requiring 5 years of service.
7. In view of this, the Tribunal is not left with any other option and the Tribunal of the view that since no contradictory statement or document have been placed by the official respondents. Thus, the reason is the pleadings of the applicants that cut-off date of 31.07.2014 requiring 5 years of service was introduced by DPC and it was not part of the statutory recruitment rules. However, despite giving sufficient opportunities, the counsel for the respondents had pleaded they are not able to place the record and therefore could not comply with the orders of the CAT of placing the proceedings of DPC of 31.07.2014. Thus, there is no reason to disagree with the pleadings of the applicants.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed and official respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants in the DPC held on 22.12.2014 whereby the candidature of the applicant s were not considered in view of the condition of cut-off date which had been introduced allegedly by the DPC in its meeting held on 31.07.2014. There is no reason to disagree with the pleadings of the applicants. The case of the applicants be considered under the statutory recruitment rules by holding review DPC within a period of six months.
9. The OA is disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
/bp/