Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Monika Wadhwa vs Post Graduate Institute Of Medical ... on 8 May, 2025
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No. 60/1074/2024
with
MA No.60/2212/2024
Reserved on: 08.05.2025
Pronounced on: 26.05.2025
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Monika Wadhwa, aged about 50 years w/o Sh. Arvind Marya, Sr. Lab.
Technician, Department of Immunopathology, Post Graduate Institute
of Medical Education & Research, Sector-12, Chandigarh r/o # 3287 A,
Sector 24-d, Chandigarh-160023, Group-B.
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. KARAN SINGLA)
VERSUS
1. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Sector-
12, Chandigarh-160012 through its Director. (pgimer-
[email protected], [email protected])
2. Union of India through the Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare (Nodal Ministry), Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110011. ([email protected])
3. The Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Personnel and
Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
North Block, New Delhi-110001. ([email protected])
2nd Addess:
Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110 003 (dirpw-
[email protected])
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Mr. PIYUSH KHANNA WITH ADITYA SHARDA)
2
ORDER
Per: HON'BLE MRS. 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 the record of the case may kindly be called for perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
ii) That the impugned action of the respondent-UOI to exclude the respondent-Institute from Schedule of Act and apply its provisions is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional, and directions be issued to amend / modify by including respondent-Institute in Schedule of Act.
iii) That impugned action of the respondent-Institute to allow reservations in single post by illegally and arbitrarily merging /combining different categories / cadres / subjects / departments vide Advertisement dated 15.06.2024 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional, therefore, the notification dated 15.06.2024 may be quashed and set-aside qua the action of reserving single post for Reserved Caste.
iv) That impugned action of the respondent-Institute to reject the application dated 19.07.2024 of applicant vide impugned letter dated 20.08.2024, Annexure A-10 may be quashed and set aside.
v) That action of respondents in allow reservations in single post by illegally and arbitrarily merging/combining different categories/cadres / subjects / departments vide Advertisement dated 15.06.2024, Annexure A-4 in absence of alleged reservation rosters /re-catsed reservation roster is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional, therefore, the action of respondent-Institute vide notification dated 15.06.2024 may be quashed and set-aside qua reserving single post for Reserved Caste.
vi) That the orders/ directions may be issued to consider the application dated 19.07.2024 (Annexure A-8) of applicant for post of Lecturer, Immunopathology being eligible in all respects, and allow the applicant to appear in the forthcoming examination by Computer Based Test.
vii) That the respondents may be directed that during the pendency of the present OA, the selection process may not be finalised /completed and may kindly be ordered to be stayed, in the interest of justice.
viii) That the damages, compensation and costs be imposed against respondents and awarded in favour of the applicant for causing undue harassment, mental torture and waste of time by using and misusing their power and authority."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
I. The applicant after doing her B.Sc. Medical Technology in 1"
division in the year 1997 had joined the services of respondent- Institute as Jr. Lab. Technician from 26.02.1998. 3 II. The applicant did her postgraduation from respondent-Institute in Technology in Pathology with 'Immunopathology' as Special Subject and has been working in department of Immunopathology since the year 2000.
III. The applicant was promoted to post of Sr. Laboratory Technician in May, 2011 and has 24 years' experience in the 'Department of Immunopathology'.
IV. The post of teaching faculty of Medical Technology i.e. 'Tutor and Lecturer' were advertised on 19.05.2008, 20.10.2010 and 14.09.2012, no reservation was allowed on the single post in each subject/department except where there was plurality of post in the same subject/department. Copy of the Advertisements issued on 19.05.2008, 20.10.2010 and 14.09.2012 are being attached collectively as Annexure A-2 (Colly).
V. The respondent-Institute has framed the Recruitment Rules of post of Lecturer of each subject / department in its Governing Body dated 22.06.2021, which were notified on 27.07.2022. Copy of Recruitment Rules for post of Lecturer in each subject/stream/department are being attached as Annexure A-3. VI. On 15.06.2024, the respondent-Institute has advertised 7 posts of Lecturers, two in the department of Hematology and one each in subject/department of Cytology, Histopathology, Immunopathology, Medical Microbiology and Medical Parasitology, which have eligibility conditions of fulfilling subject/department wise educational qualifications. Copy of impugned advertisement dated 15.06.2024 is being attached as Annexure A-4.
4VII. There is no similarity and the posts are not interchangeable or even transferable and does not constitute a cadre to combine the posts of different departments/subjects with specific educational qualifications to apply principle of reservations. VIII. The alleged merger or combination of post of Lecturer, National Institute of Nursing Education, which is altogether a different category and stream of Allied Health Professional has been put together being in same pay scale and carrying same nomenclature to apply principle of reservations under the garb of Central Education Institutions (Reservation in Teacher's Cadre) Act, 2019, which is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. IX. The respondent-Institute has further failed to justify that on what grounds, the department / subject has been chosen to mark the post of Lecturer as reserved for SC/ST/OBC by combining posts of Lecturer, Nursing and Lecturer, Medical Technology of different subjects/in absence of alleged reservation roster. X. The date of application of reservation roster has not been disclosed. Needless to add that the Recruitment Rules for posts of Lecturer, Medical Technology have been framed and notified on 27.07.2022. On 12.07.2024, the applicant sought clarifications regarding Reservation Roster, pre-emptive / pre- allocated reservation, failure to notify reservations roster, etc. However, there has been no response, whatsoever. Copy of letter dated 12.07.2024 is being attached as Annexure A-5. XI. It is further submitted that the closing date to apply online was fixed for 19.07.2024 in response to impugned Advertisement dated 15.06.2024. On 13.07.2024, the applicant applied for NOC from Establishment Section, which was provided on 18.07.2024. 5 Copy of the request letter dated 13.07.2024 and NOC dated 18.07.2024 are being attached as Annexure A-6 and A-7 respectively. Since the post of Lecturer for subject/ department of Immunopathology has been reserved for Other Backward Class (OBC), therefore, the general category candidate was barred / deprived to apply online. Therefore, on 19.07.2024, the applicant submitted her application for post of Lecturer for subject / department of Immunopathology, duly completed in all respects, offline / by hand. Copy of application dated 19.07.2024 is being attached as Annexure A-8.
XII. On 10.08.2024, the applicant submitted a reminder to her representation dated 12.07.2024 (Annexure A-4), as the respondent-Institute did not provide the clarifications sought by the applicant for about one month. Copy of the letter dated 10.08.2024 is being attached as Annexure A-9.
XIII. In response to representation dated 12.07.2024 and application dated 19.07.2024, the respondent-institute returned the original application dated 19.07.2024 vide its impugned reply dated 20.08.2024, on the plea that "No offline application form or copy of downloaded application form will be accepted by the PGIMER, Chandigarh." The respondent-Institute further submitted that in compliance of provisions of Central Education Institutions (Reservation in Teacher's Cadre) Act, 2019, the reservation roster was re-casted for the post of Tutors and Lecturers, in terms of the similar Pay Level for the posts, which was mandatory requirement as per Act, according to respondent- Institute. No other reason or justification was given to combine 6 the posts for re-casting reservation rosters. Copy of impugned reply dated 20.08.2024 is being attached as Annexure A-10. XIV. It is further submitted that neither the Reservation Roster prior to Act, 2019 nor the re-casted reservation roster were provided to applicant along with impugned reply dated 20.08.2024. However, the respondent-Institute provided the copy of Notification dated 09.07.2019 of Central Education Institutions (Reservation in Teacher's Cadre) Act, 2019 and letter dated 05.11.2019 issued by UOI. The respondent-Institute relied upon the GOI, Notification dated 09.07.2019 for Central Educational Institutions (Reservation In Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019. The respondent-Institute is world famous research Institute in medical field and it had had also been declared as "Institute of National Importance", therefore, the Institute is separately dealt with by INI Cell of respondent No. 1. It gets special research grant under Budget Heads. Copy of impugned Notification dated 09.07.2019 is being attached as Annexure A-11.
XV. The provisions of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation In Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 with regard to treating the entire Institute / University as one unit to combine the teaching posts of different subjects/departments to apply principle of reservation has been dealt with in the case of M.S.Balamurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2020) SCC Online Mad. 6197), wherein it was held that there cannot be reservation in single post relying upon similar notification was quashed and set aside placing reliance upon STATE OF U.P. v. M.C.CHATTOPADHYAYA reported in 2004 (12) SCC 333, wherein at paragraph No.6, it has observed as under:-
7
"While, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there can be a reservation in respect of post of Professor and the provisions of the Reservation Act would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all the Professors as a cadre and it has to be made subjectwise, as has been earlier construed and held by this Court. We are also of the opinion that there cannot be a reservation for an isolated post...."
xvi) It is well settled through the judgments in Dr. Chakradhar Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others-[(1988) 2 SCC 214), Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association & Others-[(1998) 4 SCC 1], State of U.P. and Others v. M.C. Chattopadhyaya and Others - [(2004) 12 SCC 333], Dr. V.P. Mahadevan Pillai v. University of Kerala - [2005 (3) KLJ 84], State of Karnataka & Others v. K. Govindappa and Another - [(2009) 1 SCC 1], State of U.P. and Others v. Bharat Singh and Others-[(2011) 4 SCC 120], Vivekanand Tiwari and Others v. Union of India and Others - [2017 (6) AL] 722), M.S.Balamurugan v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2020) SCC Online Mad. 6197), that there cannot be any reservation to a single post in any cadre. The position remains the same even if there is a structuring/re- structuring of cadres effected by the University if, on a careful scrutiny, it is found that the posts included in the re- structured cadre are not interchangeable. The purported object of providing greater reservation to backward classes of persons while effecting direct recruitment to teaching and non-teaching posts in the services under the Universities concerned, cannot justify the inclusion of dissimilar posts in a cadre while implementing the reservation principles.
xvii) It is important while examining whether teaching posts included in a cadre are similar and interchangeable, the subject/discipline concerned is a relevant feature that must inform the inclusion of 8 a post in a cadre. In the instant cases, a teacher in subject A cannot be seen as interchangeable with a teacher in subject B and hence the said teaching posts in different departments cannot be clubbed together in one cadre for the purposes of applying the reservation principles. In Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh v. Faculty Association and Others [(1998) 4 SCC 1], a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court was considering a Review Petition against a three-judge bench decision in Post Graduate Institute of Medical will wahducation & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan - [(1997) 6 SCC 283], pursuant to a reference of the issue to the larger bench by a reference order reported at State of Punjab and Another v. M.L.Sehgal and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 777]. The question before the constitution bench was whether in a single cadre post, reservation for SC's, ST's and OBC's could be applied either directly or through the roster in which vacancies are rotated amongst general category and reserved category candidates? The question was answered in the negative by clarifying that total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible under the constitutional framework. That until there was plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation would not arise because any attempt at reservation, by whatever means, and even through the device of rotation of roster in a single post cadre, was bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation was to be implemented. The view taken in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra) was approved by the constitution bench.
9xviii) In the present case, there is no plurality of post of Lecturer (Medical Technology), Group A in the subject/department of Immunopathology. Moreover, it breaches the principle of 50% reservation in a single year. No alleged reservation roster combining Lecturers of Nursing Faculty and Lecture Medical Technology Faculty has been made public or provided with impugned reply dated 20.08.2024 or even under RTI filed on 09.08.2024 to show that how the reservation point has been fixed in the alleged roster for direct recruitment of different categories and different subject/streams/specialty. In view of above facts and submissions and law of land, the impugned Notification dated 09.07.2019 is bad in law, unreasonable and discriminatory, and thus the impugned advertisement dated 15.06.2024 allowing reservation in single post by combining posts of different categories, cadre, subject/department is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and action of respondent-Institute to reject / return the application of applicant vide impugned letter dated 20.08.2024 is also wrong and incorrect. The adoption/implementation of the above stated impugned notification dated 09.07.2019 has never been placed or put before any competent authority of the Institute and not the same has ever been considered and approved by any of the competent authority. Since, the institute is governed by its own Independent Act, hence, it was mandatory on the part of the institute to put the impugned notification dated 09.07.2019 before the competent authority for its adoption/implementation in the respondent Institute.
10
3. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondents filed written statement on 14.02.2025 wherein the submissions made are as follows:
I. Vide Advertisement No. PGI/RC/044/2024/1858 dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure A-4) wherein posts of 7 posts of Lecturer in the department in Haematology. Thus, all the proceedings have been initiated and observed in compliance to the appropriate rules pertaining the recruitment.
II. It is submitted that the Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) vide dated 09.07.2019, has published Act of Parliament for general information which is called "The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 with an objective to provide for the reservation of posts in appointments by direct recruitment of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the socially and educationally backward classes and the economically weaker sections, to teachers' cadre in certain Central Educational Institutions established, maintained or aided by the Central Government, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
III. It was emphasized in the written statement that as per the provisions of the above Act and the definition of teachers' cadre, the posts of Lecturer sanctioned for each department were taken together and advertised as per reservation policy by maintaining post based reservation roster of Lecturer cadre (teaching cadre sanctioned posts) by treating Institute as one unit strictly as per provisions of CEI Act, 2019 (Annexure R1/1).
11IV. It also pleaded that the pleadings taken in the OA by the petitioner that no reply was given to her representation is not based on the fact as the same were replied by the Institute vide letter dated 20.08.2024 (Annexure A10). Regarding citations made by the applicant in its pleadings, counsel for the respondent had submitted that the judgments/orders passed by the respective Hon'ble Courts quoted in these paras have no relevance with this case, as these are prior to the enactment of Parliament Act, 2019 published in the Gazette Notification dated 09.07.2019 effective from 07.03.2019. It is also further stated in relation to para no.xxiv that nomenclature of the post is Lecturer (Medical Lab Technology) which exists in various departments. Since there are more than 01 posts of Lecturer in various departments of the Institute which have been considered as a cadre for implementing the provisions of reservation as per the CEI Act 2019, the question of breach of 50% reservation in a single year does not arise. The re-casted roster as per the provisions of the CEI Act, 2019 for teaching cadre was also placed at Annexure R1 by the respondents where the category for which posts have been indicated and where the post of Immunopathology as per the reservation criteria prescribed has been assigned to OBC.
V. It has also been submitted alongwith the written statement, the sanctioned posts category-wise, percentage -wise is reproduced as under:-
Sr.No. of The category for Name of theName ofDate of Whether Filled as Signature of Remarks the post which post department the appointmen belongs to UR or the appointing Earmarked person t/joining SC/ST/OBC/ reserved authorise appointed EWS/Central for officer SC/ST/OB C/EWS
1. UR Speech Dhara 05.02.199 UR UR Resigned Therapy & m Vir 3 on Audiology 07.08.20 19. 12
2. UR Virology Kanalp 18.01.201 UR UR reet 2 Kaur
3. UR Radiology Sushee 28.08.201 UR UR l 2 Kumar Kashya p
4. OBC-I Radiology Ajay 28.08.201 OBC OBC Kumar 2
5. UR Bioinforma Rajasri 09.01.201 UR UR tics Bhatta 7 charyy a
6. UR Biochemist ry
7. SC-1 Biochemist ry
8. OBC-2 Cytology
9. UR Heamatolo gy
10. EWS-1 Nephrolog y
11. UR Histopatho logy
12. OBC-3 Immunopa thology
13. UR Radiology
14. ST-1 Speech Therapy & Audiology
15. SC-2 Radiology
16. OBC-4 Microbiolo gy
17. UR Parasitolo gy
18. UR Radiothera py
19. OBC-5 Heaatolog y
4. The rejoinder filed by the applicant apart from reiterating the points raised in the OA had also emphasized on the point that the reservation in teaching posts cannot be implemented merely on the basis of a similar pay level. The rational to provide reservation in appointment on single isolated most carrying a different educational qualification for recruitment needs to be highly justifiable before grating the reservation, which is missing in the instant case. If we go by the principle applied by the respondents, then in such a scenario no unreserved candidates can ever apply for the post of Lecturer Immunopathology which is the subject matter of the present case as the same has been kept reserved only for OBC. Such artificial distinction amounts to violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
In the rejoinder, the counsel for the applicant emphasized on the judgment in the case of M.S. Balamurugan Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in [(2020) SCC Online Mad. 6197], wherein it was held that 13 there cannot be reservation in single post relying upon similar notification was quashed and set aside placing reliance upon State of UP Vs. M.C. Chattopadhyaya, reported in 2004 (120 SCC 333, wherein at para 6, it has observed as under:-
"While, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there can be a reservation in respect of post of Professor and the provisions of the Reservation Act would apply, but the same cannot be applied taking all the Professors as a cadre and it has to be made subjective, as has been earlier construed and held by this Court. We are also of the opinion that there cannot be a reservation for an isolated post...."
5. Heard both the counsels and have read the averments and pleadings made in the present OA.
6. It has also stated that in this case during the course of the hearing of the case of the OA vide order dated 24.09.2014, IR was granted in favour of the applicant and it was directed to the respondents to allow the applicant to appear in the examination scheduled to be held on 2.09.2024 provisionally subject to fulfillment of other conditions as prescribed in form.
7. The legislation passed by the Parliament, which reads as follows:-
"THE CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (RESERVATION IN TEACHERS' CADRE) ACT, 2019 No.10 of 2019 9th July, 2019.
An Act to provide for the reservation of posts in appointments by direct recruitment of persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the socially and educationally backward classes and the economically weaker sections, to teachers' cadre in certain Central Educational Institutions established, maintained or aided by the Central Government, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereo."
In definitions Clause 2 (l), which reads as under:-
"Reservation of posts in recruitments by Central Educational Institutions.
2l)......."teachers' cadre" means a class of all the teachers of a Central Educational Institution, regardless of the branch of study or faculty, who are remunerated at the same grade of pay excluding any allowance or bonus.
3(1)....Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force, there shall be reservation of posts in direct recruitment out of the sanctioned strength in teachers' cadre in a Central Educational Institution to 14 the extent and in the manner as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette.
(2) For the purse of reservation of posts, a Central Educational Institution shall be regarded as one unit.
8. The Tribunal has specifically gone as per the judgment in the case of M.S. Balamurugan (supra) and as per the Act, the teacher cadre definition has already been given and they have all to be treated equal as per their pay scales and based on that the reservation percentage has been applied. The Tribunal does not find an reason to interfere in the advertisement issued by the official respondents indicating the reservation points specially within the provisions of the definition of the teaching cadre and the roster made by them way back.
9. In view of the above, the OA filed in this case is devoid of any merits and hence the same is hereby dismissed. MA No.60/2212/2024 also stands dismissed. With no order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
/sv/