Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Dr Sapna Nanda vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 9 June, 2022
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Hearing by Video Conferencing
O.A. No.060/614/2021 Order pronounced on:09.06.2022
(Order reserved on: 08.04.2022)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
(On Video Conference from Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh).
HON'BLE MR. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
(On Video Conference from Central Administrative Tribunal,
Bangalore Bench, Bangalore)
Dr. Sapna Nanda, aged about 57 years, wife of Mr. Deepak
Nanda, presently holding Additional Charge, Principal,
Government College of Yoga Education and Health, Sector-
23, Chandigarh and substantive Charge of Dean,
Government College of Education, U.T. Chandigarh and
resident of House No. 561, Sector 10, Panchkula. Email ID:
[email protected]
(By: Shri Shekhar Verma, Advocate)
.. Applicant
Versus
1. Union Territory of Chandigarh through its Adviser to
the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh, UT Civil
Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
Email ID: [email protected]
2. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi through its Secretary
Email Id: [email protected]
3. Department of Education, Union Territory of
Chandigarh through Education Secretary, UT Civil
Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Email Id: dhe-
[email protected]
4. Department of Personal, Union Territory of Chandigarh
through its Secretary, UT civil Secretariat, Sector 9,
Chandigarh.
5. Department of Higher Education, Union Territory of
Chandigarh, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9,
Chandigarh through its Director. Email Id: dhe-
[email protected]
6. Dr. Ajay Kumar Srivastava presently having look after
charge of the post of Principal, Government College of
Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh.
2
(By: Shri Aseem Rai, Advocate for Respondents
No.1,3to5
Shri B.B. Sharma, Advocate, for R.No.2
Shri S.S. Pathania, Advocate for R.No.6)
Respondents
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
Pleaded case of the applicant herein is that the Chandigarh Administration had sent a requisition to Union Public Service Commission on 31.5.2001 in order to fill up various vacant posts of Lecturers in Government College of Education, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Pursuant to said requisition, the Union Public Service Commission had advertised the posts and invited applications from eligible candidates. The applicant who had earlier worked as Principal Instructor, Haryana Red Cross, ICDA Training Centre, from 30.7.1986 to 23.10.1992 and also worked as Trained Graduate Teacher and Post Graduate Teacher, being fully eligible to hold the post of Lecturer (Home Science) had submitted her application to the Union Public Service Commission on 23.11.2001.
2. Likewise, Dr. A.K. Srivastava (Respondent No.6 herein) who had been working as Post Graduate 3 Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, had also applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi.
3. It has been averred that the applicant and Dr. A.K. Srivastava are from different streams of teaching subjects and, therefore, the Union Public Service Commission had constituted separate subject- wise groups / panels for interview in order to make selection of suitable candidates for appointment to respective posts. The interview panel constituted by the Union Public Service Commission had interviewed the applicant on 2.4.2002 and she was selected on the basis of her merit and placed at Sr. No.1 in the select list of Lecturer (Home Science). In so far as the Lecturers in Hindi are concerned, the interview panel constituted by the Union Public Service Commission conducted the interview on 12.4.2002. Although the applicant was interviewed and selected on 2.4.2002, the formal communication with regard to her selection was issued on 8.5.2002. Whereas, the respondent No.6 who was interviewed and selected on 12.4.2002, a formal communication in his case with regard to his selection was issued prior in time than the applicant i.e. on 23.4.2002. It has further been averred that Union 4 Public Service Commission never determined the order of merit as it was dealing with the different subject panels. The issuance of recommendation letters for appointment is a ministerial act and cannot be the criteria to determine the inter-se seniority. It has been pleaded that in case any comparison has to be made between the applicant and the respondent No.6, then without prejudice, the date of interview would be the relevant date of selection for seniority.
4. The office of Registrar for Director Higher Education, Chandigarh, had circulated a provisional / tentative seniority list vide Memo dated 24.5.2007 and the applicant was placed at Sr. No. 11, whereas, respondent No. 6 was placed at Sr. No. 12. Once again in the year 2008, a provisional seniority list was circulated vide Memo dated 25.6.2008 placing the applicant at Sr. No. 9 and respondent No. 6 at Sr. No.
10. It has been averred that the respondent No.6 never filed any objection to the said tentative seniority list for which 15 days‟ time was granted by the competent authority. The issue with regard to finalization of the seniority was, however, kept pending without assigning any reason.
5
5. On 17.9.2007, there was a discussion on the official noting sheet regarding fixation of seniority of certain members of the service belonging to Scheduled Caste/Other Backward Classes, without any reference to the issue of seniority between the applicant and respondent No. 6. In order to give benefit to the reserved category candidates for the loss of service suffered by them, instructions dated 3.7.1986 were introduced ignoring the statutory rules applicable to applicant for fixation of her seniority. It has further been averred that despite reference of an order dated 29.2.2008, the applicant was placed higher in seniority vide order dated 25.6.2008 when respondent No.6 started giving representations and one such representation was given by him on 23.7.2008.
6. Somewhere in the year 2009, respondent department without issuing any notice to the applicant, unilaterally changed the seniority list and in the revised provisional seniority list, the respondent No.6 was placed over and above the applicant herein. As a result thereof, the applicant submitted representations dated 29.12.2009 and 11.4.2011. The respondent department, however, did not take any final decision 6 with regard to finalization of the seniority list and the matter was kept in abeyance despite the fact that numerous hearings were given to the aggrieved persons.
7. In the year 2014, once again a tentative seniority list was circulated wherein respondent No. 6 was placed at Sr. No. 9 and the applicant herein was placed at Sr. No. 10. The applicant filed her objection to the said provisional seniority list and based on her objections, a final seniority list of only 8 senior most Lecturers was issued by way of a memorandum dated 1.2.2016. In the said final seniority list, Shri R.B. Yadav, whose appointment was through UPSC, was assigned the seniority from the date of his joining.
8. It has been submitted that the post of Lecturer with revised status now stands changed to the Assistant Professor. The process of finalization of the seniority list of all other Lecturers was kept in abeyance. The respondent department convened numerous meetings and granted opportunities of personal hearings, but no final decision was taken in this regard. It is on 24.1.2020 that once again a provisional seniority list of Lecturers / Assistant 7 Professors was circulated and objections were invited from the Members of the service. Pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted her objections by way of a representation dated 7.2.2020 which was followed by another detailed representation dated 28.12.2020. The respondent No.3, however, disposed of the applicant‟s representation vide order dated 18.3.2021 without even discussing the contents thereof.
9. Grievance of the applicant in the instant Original Application is against the final seniority list dated 18.3.2021 wherein she has been placed at Sr. No.10 below the respondent No. 6 who has been placed at Sr. No. 9.
10. The applicant is presently holding the additional charge of Principal, Government College of Yoga Education & Health, Sector-23, Chandigarh and in her parent cadre she is holding the post of Dean, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh w.e.f. 18.11.2011. The post of Principal, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh became vacant on 30.1.2020 and the additional charge of the said post was given to one Mrs. Renu Verma, who superannuated on 30th 8 September, 2020. It has been averred that the applicant is fully eligible to be appointed against the vacant post of Principal on regular basis. Respondent No. 6 is also aspirant for the said post which is to be filed up by way of promotion. Presently, the respondent No. 6 is looking after the charge of the post of Principal, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh.
11. With all the aforesaid assertions, the applicant herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for quashing the office order dated 18.3.2021 to the extent of placing her below respondent No. 6 in the seniority list. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to official respondents to initiate and notify the process of Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion / appointment to the post of Principal, Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh.
12. The respondents No.1 and 3 to 5 by way of filing a joint written statement have joined the defence and opposed the claim set up by the applicant in the Original Application.
9
13. It has been submitted that the notification dated 13.1.1992 provides that the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts in Groups A, B, C, and D under the administrative control of the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall, subject to any other provision made by the President in this behalf, be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the later category of persons. It has however, been averred that the said notification would apply only after a person is offered appointment under the respondent Administration and not at any stage prior to that. The Union Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement dated 27.10.2001 wherein applications were invited for 2 posts of Lecturers (Hindi) and 1 post of Lecturer (Home Science). It has been stated that till such time the process was being conducted, the same shall be governed by the Instructions / guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, which include the fixation of inter-se seniority amongst the competing candidates. The notification dated 13.1.1992 will become applicable only after selected candidates are offered the appointments in the Chandigarh Administration and, therefore, the inter-se seniority of the candidates 10 participating in the said selection process, even prior to being appointed, is to be governed by the notification dated 13.1.1992 is highly misconceived and without any basis. It has further been averred that the respondent had prepared a provisional seniority list on the basis of Department of Personnel & Training O.M. dated 3.7.1986 and a clarification issued vide subsequent O.M. dated 11.11.2010. The respondent department received various objections against the provisional seniority list circulated vide office letters dated 24.1.2021 and 7.1.2021 and after considering those objections, the seniority list has been finalized vide memo dated 18.3.2021. With all these assertions, a prayer for dismissal of the Original Application has been made.
14. The Union Public Service Commission (Respondent No.2 herein) by way of filing its short reply has stated that it is an advisory body set up under Article 315 of the Indian Constitution and it has a constitutional obligation to ensure that all the selections made for regular appointment to the services / posts under the Government are made in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules and the relevant instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. The Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training, vide O. M. dated 10.4.1989 has issued Instructions on 11 holding of meetings of Departmental Promotion Committee. It has further been averred that no proposal for considering promotion to the post of Principal, Government College of Education, Chandigarh has been received from the Chandigarh Administration. The issue of finalization of seniority list is an administrative issue within the purview of the Chandigarh Administrtion in which the Union Public Service Commission has no role to play. The Union Public Service Commission has, thus, been impleaded in the Original Application unnecessarily and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.
15. The respondent No.6 has filed a separate written statement stating therein that the applicant‟s name was recommended by the Union Public Service Commission on 8.5.2002 and his was on 23.4.2002. The applicant joined her duties as Lecturer (Home Science) on 24.5.2002, whereas, the respondent No. 6 joined as Lecturer (Hindi) on 8.8.2002. Both of them belong to different streams in so far as subject of specialization is concerned and were selected by the different Selection Committees/Boards constituted by the Union Public Service Commission. Under the circumstances, the merit list was not available as there was no requisition for fixing the inter-se seniority. The services of U.T. employees are governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules and the Regulations which regulate the 12 recruitment and general conditions of service of the candidates appointed to Class I, Class II and Class III services. It has further been averred that the post of the Principal is not a promotional post and there is a provision for making direct recruitment through Union Public Service Commission. However, to look after the day to day affairs, the respondent No. 6 has been given the additional charge and the applicant herein is not eligible for regular appointment to the said post. It has further been averred that the date of interview is a fortuitous circumstance and the date of recommendation made by the Union Public Service Commission will have the priority for determining the inter-se seniority. With all these assertions it has been pleaded by respondent No. 6 that there is no ground to quash the impugned seniority list.
16. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
17. Shri Shekhar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that pursuant to requisition sent by the Chandigarh Administration, the Union Public Service Commission advertised two posts of Lecturers in Hindi and one post of Lecturer in Home Science. The applicant was interviewed on 2.4.2002, whereas, respondent No. 6 was interviewed on 12.4.2002 by separate selection committees. Pursuant to letters of selection issued to the applicant and respondent No. 6 on 8.5.2002 and 23.4.2002 13 respectively, the Chandigarh Administration had issued appointment letters to applicant on 23.5.2002 and to respondent No.6 on 16.7.2002. The applicant joined on 24.5.2002 and respondent No. 6 joined on 8.8.2002, Therefore, while taking into consideration the length of service, the applicant who is governed by Punjab Educational Service (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976 and Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, deserves to be placed over and above respondent No. 6 in the seniority list. The reliance of respondent department on the DoPT Instructions dated 3.7.1986 and 11.11.2010 is highly misplaced as the service conditions of the applicant and respondent No. 6 are governed by Punjab Rules only.
18. On the other hand, Shri Aseem Rai, learned counsel representing the Chandigarh Administration submitted that the Notification dated 13.1.1992 would apply only after a person is offered appointment in the Chandigarh Administration and not at any stage prior to that. Learned counsel though admitted that service conditions of the applicant and respondent No. 6 are governed by the Punjab Rules but till such time process was being conducted and finalized, it will be governed by the instructions / guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training, which will include the subject of 14 fixation of inter-se seniority amongst the competing candidates. According to learned counsel, the applicant‟s claim that the issue with regard to seniority shall be governed by the Notification dated 13.1.1992 is without any basis.
19. Toeing almost the similar line of argument, Shri S.S. Pathania, learned counsel representing the respondent No.6, however, further submitted that the date of interview is a fortuitous circumstance and it is the date of recommendation made by the Union Public Service Commission which takes priority in determining the inter- se seniority. Since the name of respondent No. 6 was recommended prior in time than the applicant herein, therefore, the Chandigarh Administration has rightly fixed his seniority over and above the applicant.
20. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
21. Indisputably, the Chandigarh Administration had sent a requisition to Union Public Service Commission on 31.5.2001 in order to fill up one post of Lecturer in Home Science and two posts of Lecturers in Hindi. Pursuant thereto, the Union Public Service Commission had issued an advertisement on 27.10.2001 inviting the applications from all eligible candidates. The applicant herein and respondent No. 6 being eligible for the posts of Lecturer in 15 Home Science and Lecturer in Hindi respectively, had submitted their applications pursuant to said advertisement. The applicant was interviewed on 2.4.2002 and respondent No. 6 was interviewed on 12.4.2002 by separate selection committees constituted by the Union Public Service Commission as both of them belong to different teaching subjects. The applicant was selected for the post of Lecturer in Home Science and a formal communication was given to her by Union Public Service Commission on 8.5.2002, whereas, respondent No.6, who was selected for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, was conveyed such a communication on 23.4.2002. Pursuant to letter dated 8.5.2002, the appointment letter was issued to the applicant by Chandigarh Administration on 23.5.2002. Whereas, the appointment letter was issued in favour of respondent No.6 on 16.7.2002. Both of them were given 30 days time to give their joining report. Accordingly, the applicant joined the services of the respondent department as Lecturer in Home Science on 24.5.2002. Whereas, the respondent No. 6 joined the services as Lecturer in Hindi on 8.8.2002. It has come up on record that the respondent No. 6 had given his joining without getting himself relieved from the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan where he had earlier been working as Post Graduate Teacher.
16
22. A perusal of the memorandum dated 16.9.2002 Annexure A-16 issued by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan reveals that respondent No. 6 had informed the Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dholchera, that he proceeded on Extra Ordinary Leave w.e.f.5.8.2002 to 14.8.2002 in order to visit his home town and directly joined the post of Lecturer in Hindi at Govt. College of Education, Chandigarh on 8.8.2002 without getting himself relieved from the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and sought acceptance of his resignation from a back date i.e. 5.8.2002. After noticing the fact that no government servant can join any other department without getting himself relived from his parent department, it was stated in the said memorandum that respondent No. 6 had committed grave misconduct. Furthermore, the letter dated 20.9.2002 addressed by respondent No.6 to the Assistant Commissioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Hospital Road, Silchar, Assam reveals that the respondent No. 6 himself has admitted the fact that he submitted his joining report at Government College of Education, Sector 20, Chandigarh without getting himself relieved from the services of the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dholchera and he regretted for the said lapse on his part. It is beyond our comprehension that how respondent No. 6 could join his duties on 8.8.2002 as Lecturer in Hindi at Government College of Education, 17 Chandigarh and how he could submit an application before the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 20.9.2002 for acceptance of his resignation w.e.f. 5.8.2002. The Chandigarh Administration, though at one point of time sought to enquire into the matter but nothing tangible appears to have been achieved. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to enter into the legality of the action of respondent No. 6 in giving joining on 8.8.2002 pursuant to appointment letter issued by the Chandigarh Administration on 16.7.2002.
23. The question which requires to be determined is as to whether the respondent No. 6 can be placed over and above the applicant in the seniority list or not.
24. The fact with regard to applicability of the rules governing the corresponding posts of Punjab Government employees to the employees of Union Territory, Chandigarh is not in dispute. While promulgating the Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992, by way of notification dated 13.1.1992 it was stipulated that the conditions of services of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and the posts in Groups A, B, C and D under the administrative control of the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to the corresponding posts in Punjab 18 Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons.
25. The question with regard to the applicability of the Punjab Rules to the employees of Union Territory, Chandigarh also came to be considered before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union Territory of Chandigarh & Others Vs Rajesh Kumar Basandhi & Another, 2003 (11) SCC 549, wherein it was held that whatever be the conditions of service for Punjab Services, at the time they are to be applied, the same would, ipso-facto, apply to the Chandigarh Services. Thus, in the case in hand, the rules which will govern the seniority and other service conditions of the applicant herein and the respondent No. 6 are the Government of Punjab Educational Services (College Cadre) (Class II) Rules, 1976 and the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. According to Rule 12 of the „1976 Rules‟ the inter-se seniority of the members of the service holding the same class of posts or posts in the same or identical scale of pay is required to be determined by the length of continuous service on such posts which shall be counted from the date of appointment as specified in the appointment order or if, no such date is specified in the said order, from the date of the order. 19 However, by way of fist proviso to Rule 12, it has been provided that the order of merit determined by the Commission or other recruiting authority shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection. Rule 12 of the „1976 Rules‟ is reproduced here as under:
"12(1) The inter se- seniority of the members of the service holding the same class of posts or posts in the same or identical scales of pay shall be determined by the length of continuous service on such posts which shall be counted from the date of appointment as specified in the appointment or promotion order or if no such date is specified in the said order, from the date of the order.
Provided that the order of merit determined by the Commission shall not be disturbed in fixing the seniority and persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection shall be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
26. In the case in hand, admittedly no order of merit was determined by the Union Public Service Commission while making recommendations of the names of respondent No. 6 and the applicant herein. Neither such an order of merit could be determined as both of them are from different streams of teaching subjects. Even the separate selection committees were constituted to interview them on different dates. Since there was no order of merit determined by the Union Public Service Commission, therefore, the dates of issuance of communication with regard to selection of both the candidates, in our 20 considered view, cannot be a determining factor to govern their inter-se seniority.
27. In D.P. Das Vs. Union of India & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 115, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court while dealing with a peculiar situation where the rule governing the seniority was silent, the length of service was considered to be the determining factor to settle the inter-
se seniority of the candidates. The relevant observations as made in para 18 of the report are reproduced here as under :-
"The law is clear that seniority is an incidence of service and where the service rules prescribe the method of its computation, it is squarely governed by such rules. In the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service is taken into account. The Supreme Court in M.B. Joshi & others V. Satish Kumar Pandey & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 267 has laid down that it is the well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any specific rule the seniority amongst persons holding similar posts in the same cadre has to be determined on the basis of the length of the service and not on any other fortuitous circumstances."
28. The plea set up by the Chandigarh Administration in its written statement that the notification dated 13.1.1992 would apply only after a person is offered appointment in Chandigarh Administration and not at any stage prior to that and, therefore, till such time the process is being conducted / finalized, the same would be governed by the DoPT instructions, which included the inter-se seniority also, can hardly be accepted in view of the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in D.P. 21 Das (supra). Admittedly, by way of a notification dated 13.1.1992, The Conditions of Services of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 were notified and by virtue of Rule 2 of the said rules, the Punjab Civil Services Rules were made applicable to the employees of the Chandigarh Administration. Thus, the reliance of the Chandigarh Administration upon the DoP&T OM dated 3.7.1986 and 10.10.2011 is highly misplaced.
29. According to the assertions made by the Chandigarh Administration in its written statement, the notification dated 13.1.1992 would apply only after a person is appointed in the Chandigarh Administration. However, in order to defeat the applicant‟s claim with regard to seniority, a plea has been raised that till such time the process of recruitment is finalized, it may be governed by the instructions / guidelines issued by the DoPT which will include the fixation of inter-se seniority amongst the competing candidates. Such a plea, in our considered view, cannot be countenanced. The rules governing the service conditions of an employee become applicable, the moment he becomes the member of service after giving his joining on a post. In our opinion, the DoPT instructions / guidelines to govern the inter-se seniority in the case in hand are totally irrelevant.
22
30. Looking at the case from another angle, we find that in the case of one Dr. R.B. Yadav, date of joining has been considered as a determining factor for the purposes of seniority. It is beyond our comprehension that how two different yardsticks can be applied in the same cadre while determining the seniority of the members of a service. A perusal of the final seniority list dated 18.3.2021 would reveal that Dr. R.B. Yadav joined the services on 24.7.1992 and while taking into consideration the said date, he has been placed at Sr. No. 7 in the seniority list. Whereas, the applicant with date of joining as 24.5.2002, has been placed at Sr. No. 10 below the respondent No. 6 ignoring the fact that the respondent No. 6 joined the services much later than the applicant i.e. on 8.8.2002. Such an act of the Chandigarh Administration is highly irrational and being contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution and the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in D.P. Das (supra), cannot be sustained.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, while keeping in view the principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of D.P. Das (supra), the length of service would be the adequate determining principle to settle the inter-se seniority of the members of service. Thus, the applicant herein deserves 23 to be placed in the seniority list over and above the respondent No.6 who joined the service later in point of time than the applicant herein.
32. In the conspectus of discussions made hereinabove, the Original Application deserves to be allowed.
33. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The seniority list dated 18.3.2021 (Annexure A-11) to the extent of placing the respondent No. 6 over and above the applicant herein is hereby quashed. The Chandigarh Administration is directed to modify the final seniority list accordingly and after undertaking such a process, take further necessary action forthwith to convene the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Principal and if the applicant is otherwise found eligible, consider her case for promotion in accordance with the rules.
34. There shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
HC*