Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kamaljit Kaur vs Dpi Ut Chandigarh on 12 September, 2017
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH : Aae : . "f}
6. A. No.60/00477/2015 Date of decision: /3 9. sof Ax! (Reserved on: 01.09.2017) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER {J}. HON'BLE MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER (A).
Kamaljit Kaur, aged 49 years wife of Sh. Kulwinder Singh, working as Director Physical Education, Government Senior Secondary School, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.
»» APPLICANT VERSUS i, Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration through Advisor to Administrator.
bo Education Secretary, Union T erritory, Chandigarh Administration, Sector Q, Chandigarh. |
3. Director Public Instructions (Schools), Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
. a: RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Sh. R.K, Sharma, counsel for the applicant. Sh. Arvind Moudgil, counsel for the respondents.
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER [J}:-
I. The apphcant in the present O.A. is aggrieved against order No.DPLUT-S2-H(S3j2012 dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure A-1), whereby she has been promoted as Mistress (School Cadre}(DPE) in the Pay Band of Rs.10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay with immediate effect instead of considering her claim w.e.f. 2005 when by 4\ she became eligible and was second senior most in the category Le, C&V. She has further sought issuance of directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion from the post of Physical Training Instructor to the post of Director Physical Education against 3 vacancies pertaining to C&V/JBT quota when vacancy became available ie. w.e.f 2005.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the applicant initially joined the respondent department as Physical Training Instructor {PTT} on
04.09.1997 orl temporary basis. Her services were made regular as such w.e.f, 13.01.1998. The post of PTi has been classified as Classical and Vernacular (C&V for short). Next charmel of promotion from the post of PT is to the post of Director Physical Education {DPE}, which "post 1s governed by the statutory Recruitment Rules "nown é as Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre} (Group C) Recruitment Rules, 1991 as arnended from time to. time. The post of DPE falls under the category of Trained Graduate Teachers (TG). AS per 1991 Rules, out of total 20% quota pertaining to promotion category, 15% of 20% quota belongs to C&V teachers Le. the cadre to which the applicant belongs. As per Rules, in case of non-availability of suitabie candidate in JBT category, the vacancies can be filed up from C&V category by converting the vacancies from JBT category to that of C&YV.
3. The respondent department made 9 promotions on 09.12.2003 in the cadre of T.G.T and three promotion from the category of C&V. hao oy.
Dv Since one post was given to the reserved category, one Sh. Sewa Singh, working as PTI and was belonging to SC category, approached the Tribunal by way of Original Application No.667/CH/200 seeking promotion to the post of DPE against the reserved category. However, before adjudication of his claim by the Tribunal, he was promoted by the respondent department vide order dated 05.07.2006 along with 6 other incumbents. At that time, three posts out of total 15 posts were available with the respondent department for promotion' to. the post of DPE of which 2 were for UBT and 1 for C&V. Sh. Sewa singh was promoted against the vacancy available. for C&V teachers. However, none was found suitable 'for UBT 'category and as such, the same remained unfilled though theses posts could have been filled in by was eligible « at that time and was required to be promoted against any of the two. vacancies belonging to JBT, she is entitled for promotion w. ef. the date the vacancies. novaice available and the applicant became eligible for the same as per order of her seniority. The applicant submitted representation dated 14.05.2008 to the District Education Officer, Chandigarh seeking consideration for promotion with the mention that her case was already forwarded vide Memo dated 19.01.2005 indicating therein that out of total 3 posts, only one post was filled in.
The respondents initiated process for promotion to the post of DPE as is reflected frorn the communication dated 28.07.2008 issued fs 22 by respondent No.2 to the Distt. Education Officer. A perusal of communication dated 28.07.2008 reveals that instead of two vacancies belonging to JBT, which remained unfilled, one more vacancy in the category of C&V had become available and as such three vacancies were lying vacant with the department at that time against which the case of the applicant could have been considered. Instead of deciding her claim, the respondents decided to fill up 18 posts of DPE against the direct quota as is apparent from the advertisement issued by them in August 2007 for which written test was conducted ini July /August 2009. As such, applicant approached: this Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 994 /PB/2009. The ¢ al foresaid LO. A. was disposed of on 24.11.2010 with the directions to respondent No.2 2 to finalize the seniority list of the relevant category of, employees within a period of two months from the date of the: ofder. Thereafter, respondent department issued provisional gradation list of Drawing/PTI/Tabla Instructor as on'O 1.05.2011 vide Memo dated 30.05.2011 seeking objections from the individual employees to which applicant raised her objection vide her application dated 02.06.2011.
The respondents did not take any decision with regard to promotion of the applicant in spite of finalization of the seniority. Consequently, she was constrained to file C.P. No. 78/2013. However, the said C.P. was disposed with a direction to the respondents to carry out the process as per respective quota within a period of three months. Again, the respondents did not by.
52. comply with the directions of the Tribunal and the applicant again filed C.P. No, 060/00082 /2014. During the pendency of the C.P., respondent Chandigarh Administration issued promotion orders af various categories of teachers viz. Junior Basic Teachers (JBT}, Nursery Teachers (NTT) and C&V Teachers including that of the . applicant, promoting them as Masters/ Mistresses (School Cadre) in the pay band of Rs. 10300-34800+5000 Grade Pay, vide order dated 24.11.2012 and the said C.P. was disposed of by the Tribunal having been satisfied, Since the applicant was due for promotion w.e.f, 2005 being senior most candidate in her category ie. C&V and three vacancies were available at-that time, hence the applicant is before this Court as the respondents have not considered her claim from the date when post became available. Respondents. while 'ioe' 6 wr "hich statement have categorically suibmitted that in the year 2005, there was no vacant post in the category of C&V,, to which the applicant belongs as is borne out from record. They have further stated that the applicant wanted that two vacancies falling in category of JBT be converted and given to C&V category and thereafter her case be considered. There is not any specific clause provided under the Rules for filling up the post by promotion from alternate category and therefore, O.A. be dismissed. It is also submitted that applicant has not come with a plea that person junior to her has been promoted prior to the applicant.
Ra ¢7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.
8. A conjunctive perusal of pleadings makes it clear that applicant has impugned the action of the respondents in promoting her to the post of DPE from 2014 instead of 2005 on the premises that had the respondents converted twa posts falling in category of JBT in C&V category, than the applicant would have been promoted in the year 2005, Applicant has failed to point out any rule or instructions in this behalf that under the Rule formation governing the field, the respondents can convert the post of a particular category and can give the same to other category. In the absence of any rule formation, Court caririot direct the respondents to take away vacancy from a particular category and to provide the same to other category by increasing their quota under the rule formation.
9. Accordingly, we see no reason to entertain the plea raised by the applicant. The O.A, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed, Ca ee -
(P. GOPINATH) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Date: /2.9, 201} Place: Chandigarh.
"KR'