Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kumari Pramila vs Postgraduate Institute Of Medical ... on 3 April, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH OA No.060/00347/2017 Date of decision: 03.04.2017 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J) HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A) Kumari Pramila, aged 39 years, (Group-B), W/o Sh. Aman Sinha, presently posted as CSR Asstt. Grade-I, CSSD, PGIMER, Chandigarh, R/o H.No.1258, Aryan Enclave, Sector 51-B, Chandigarh. .APPLICANT (Present : Mr. Pankaj Katia, Advocate) VERSUS 1. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, through its Director, Sector 12, Chandigarh. 2. Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Central Sterile Supply Department through its Medical Superintendent, Sector 12, Chandigarh. ..RESPONDENTS ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J):-
At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here that first Original Application (OA) No.060/00773/2015 (Annexure A-12) filed by the applicant, challenging the same impugned Recruitment Rules and order was disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2016 (Annexure A-13). Sequelly, second OA No.060/00270/2017, claiming the same very relief was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 14.03.2017 (Annexure A-17) by this Tribunal.
2. Now, the applicant, Kumari Pramila, has preferred the instant 3rd OA challenging the vires of Impugned Proposed Amendment New Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-16) and office order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure A-15), whereby her representation was rejected by the Competent Authority.
3. The crux of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant Original Application (OA), and emanating from the record, is that, the respondent-Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) advertised the post of CSR, Assistant Grade-II in the year 2003. In pursuance of the advertisement, the applicant was selected for the post of CSR Assistant Grade-II, through proper channel, vide appointment letter dated 20.05.2003 (Annexure A-5).
4. As a consequences thereof, applicant joined her duty, as such on 27.05.2003, vide letter (Annexure A-6). Ultimately, she was promoted to the post of CSR Assistant Grade-I w.e.f. 18.02.2009 vide letter (Annexure A-7). It was alleged that one post of Supervisor came to be vacant on 31.03.2014, on the superannuation of one Sh. Savinder Rai. The applicant being senior most came to be assigned the duties of Supervisor. The applicant sent representation dated 20.06.2014, 26.02.2015 and 01.08.2015 (Annexure A-9) (Colly) seeking regular appointment / promotion to the indicated post. But, since she was not eligible for promotion, so her claim was rejected, for want of required experience as CSR, Assistant Grade-I, vide order dated 25.08.2015 (Annexure A-10), by the Administrative Officer. The OA No. 060/00773/2015 filed by her, challenging the Impugned Proposed Amended Recruitment Rules was dismissed as withdrawn, on 12.07.2016 (Annexure A-13)
5. The case set up by the applicant, in brief, insofar as relevant, is that, thereafter, she sent a notice dated 03.08.2016 (Annexure A-14), for redressal of her grievances, but her claim was rejected vide office order dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure A-15) by the Competent Authority, in the garb of Proposed Amended Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-16). The 2nd OA No.060/00270/2017, filed by the applicant, challenging the same proposed rules was dismissed as withdrawn (Annexure A-17) as well.
6. Sequelly, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, challenging the Proposed Amended Recruitment Rules and impugned order mainly, on the ground that the New Recruitment Rules were never placed before the cabinet or notified by the Competent Authority, which are claimed to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are stated to have framed rules without adhering to the guidelines of DoPT. It was alleged that respondents are discriminating between existing employees and fresh recruits by applying the criteria of experience of 10 years, on the post of CSR Assistant Grade-I, for promotion to the post of Supervisor of CSSD under the Impugned Proposed Amendment Recruitment Rules.
7. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events in detail in all, the applicant pleaded that her claim cannot be rejected in the garb of experience, contained in the proposed Amended Recruitment Rules. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the Impugned Proposed Recruitment Rules and order, in the manner, indicated hereinabove.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter, we are of the view, that there is no merit and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herein below.
9. As is evident from the record, that the applicant, Ms. Kumari Pramila, was promoted from the post of CSR Assistant Grade-II to the post of CSR Assistant Grade-I alongwith Ms. Nitika Gulati and Ms. Jyoti, vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure A-7). She made representations (Annexure A-9) (Colly) for further promotion to the post of CSSD Supervisor. As per Recruitment Rules (Annexure A-11), the post of CSSD Supervisor is to be filled in by promotion, failing which by direct recruitment. As the applicant was not fulfilling the requisite experience of 10 years of regular service on the post of CSR Assistant Grade-I, so the post of Supervisor CSSD was required to be filled by Direct Recruitment, as per Recruitment Rules. The legal notice dated (Annexure A-14) for promoting the applicant on the aforesaid post was rejected, vide impugned order dated 14.09.2016, by the Competent Authority, which in substance is as under:-
Whereas as per existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor, CSSD, the post is required to be filled by promotion failing which by direct recruitment which has been approved by the appropriate bodies of the Institute and circulated vide Office order issued under Endst. No.PGIMA-2015/F-006/8170 dated 18/22.09.2015.
Whereas as per above approved Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor CSSD, the CSR Assistants Grade-I with 10 years of regular service in the grade possessing 10th pass with science plus diploma in Operation Theatre Techniques are eligible for promotion.
Whereas Ms. Kumari Pramila was promoted to the post of CSR Asstt. Grade-I on 18.02.2009. She will be eligible for promotion to the post of Supervisor, CSSD on 18.02.2019.
Whereas no CSR Asstt. Grade-I has completed 10 years of regular service, hence no one was eligible and the post of Supervisor, CSSD was advertised to be filled by Direct Recruitment as per existing Recruitment Rules which is under process.
Whereas to comply with the directions of the Honble CAT, your representation has been examined thoroughly in the light of the Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor, CSSD framed after thorough examination / consideration by the Governing Body and Institute Body of the Institute. Hence, the case of your promotion to the post of Supervisor, CSSD can be considered only on completion of experience of 10 years of regular service in the grade as per the existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor, CSSD.
10. Meaning thereby, the matter has been examined in the right perspective by the Competent Authority. Once it is proved that the applicant does not fulfil the requisite experience of 10 years of regular service, on the post of CSR Assistant Grade-I, in that eventuality, the post of Supervisor of CSSD is required to be filled by way of direct recruitment, as per recruitment rules. That being the position on record, the proposed Recruitment Rules, cannot possibly be termed to be discriminatory or arbitrary, in any manner. No material much less cogent is forthcoming on record to challenge the validity of the impugned recruitment rules. It is now well settled principle of law that there must be cogent and strong valid grounds to set aside the recruitment rules, which are totally lacking in the present case. Such recruitment rules cannot legally be quashed on the speculative grounds and wishful thinking of the applicant.
11. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the applicant.
12. In the light of the aforesaid, as there is no merit in this case, so, the OA is hereby dismissed as such with no order as to costs.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 03.04.2017
rishi
1
OA 060/00347/2017