Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Chandigarh Administration Through Its ... on 9 October, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH CHANDIGARH O.A. No.060/00923/2015 Decided on: 09.10.2015 Coram: Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) Honble Mr. Uday Kumar Varma, Member (A) Nishant Mongia s/o Gulshan Das Mongia R/o F-5/9 near Singhsabha Gurdwara, Rajpura, Punjab.
.Applicant Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator, Punjab Raj Bhawan, Sector 6, Chandigarh UT.
2. The Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary Education, Chandigarh Administration, UT Secretariat, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
3. Director Public Instructions, 1st Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, UT Chandigarh.
..Respondents Present: Mr. Amandeep Saini, counsel for the applicant Mr. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for the respondents Order (Oral) By Honble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member(J)
1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, who participated in Yoga sport at the National level, applied for the post of Master in Science and Master in Mathematics under sport category, but his candidature has, illegally, been rejected on the ground that Yoga cannot be considered as a sports discipline. While relying upon a communication dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure A-8), learned counsel submits that Yoga has been recognized as a sports discipline and placed in the priority category. In support of his claim, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kapil Dev Sharma Vs. Chandigarh Administration & Others(CWP No. 14883/2004) decided on 30.01.2014 wherein it has been ruled that Yoga shall be considered as sports discipline for promotion to the next post.
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
3. Mr. Arvind Moudgil, learned Standing counsel, accepts notice.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has made a representation dated 08.09.2015 to consider his candidature in the light of instructions aforementioned and the law laid down by the Honble High Court in the case of Kapil Dev Sharma (supra), but the same has not been decided by the respondents till date. He makes a statement at the Bar that the applicant will be satisfied if the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his representation (Annexure A-9) in the light of the instructions and law relied upon by him.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to the disposal of the case in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Given the ad idem between the learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the respondents have not yet responded to the representation of the applicant, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to consider the representation (Annexure A-9) of the applicant in the light of instructions dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure A-8) issued by the Govt. of India and also the law laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kapil Dev Sharma (supra), by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. Needless to say that we have made no comments on the merits of the case. No costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
PLACE: Chandigarh
Dated: 09.10.2015
mw
-3- O.A. No.060/00923/2015