Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-

1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:-

(i) Set aside the agenda Annexure A-4 to the extent it provided for reservation of one post for promotion as Head Masters/Mistresses from amongst the Language Masters/Mistresses against Physically Handicapped Quota and out of 36 posts of Head Masters/Mistresses, 29 had been determined for Masters/Mistresses and 7 for Language Masters/Mistresses (Hindi, Punjabi & Sanskrit) as against correct determination of 27 and 9 for the above said categories respectively and accordingly set aside the proceedings of the DPC thereby setting aside promotions of respondents No. 3 to 5.

2. Language Masters/Mistresses (Hindi/Punjabi/Sanskrit) (General Category/P.H.- 1 post) Total - 10 posts

6. It is also stated that there is reservation for the physically handicapped category in Union Territory of Chandigarh on the pattern of Central Government. According to the instructions, 3% reservation has been provided for this category. This percentage has to be calculated on the total cadre strength. Thus, taking into consideration total cadre strength of the cadre of Headmasters to be 45, at least 02 posts fall to the share of Physically Handicapped and therefore, two Masters namely (i) Vinod Kumar Sharma (Respondent No. 3) from the Cadre of Language Master and (ii) Devinder Singh from General Master Cadre were promoted as Headmaster.

9. It has further been stated that 3% posts are reserved for physically handicapped persons in promotions for A, B, C and D category, meaning thereby if there are 100 posts, the posts reserved for physically handicapped will be such as 1 to 33 = 1 post, 34 to 66 = 2 posts and 67 to 100 = 3 posts. First available post from the block of 1-33 is required to go to the physically handicapped candidate. In case of unsuitability factor, 2nd available post is reserved for physically handicapped candidate. Total posts of Headmasters/Headmistresses in UT Education Department are 45 out of which 80% are to be filled by promotion and 20% by deputation. Thus, 36 posts are divided between general Masters/Mistresses and language Masters/Mistresses (TGTs) on the basis of ratio i.e. 4 : 1. The ratio is determined by the department. Out of 45 sanctioned posts of Headmasters/Headmistresses, only two posts are filled from among handicapped persons as per the roster system and notification issued from time to time by Government of India and the UT Chandigarh Administration. Two posts reserved for disabled persons are supposed to fill up on the basis of seniority of handicapped persons. Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma was senior most candidate among physically handicapped persons in both cadres i.e. language Master/Mistress and General Master/Mistress. Therefore, first available posting of Headmaster went to Mr. Devender Singh, Fine Arts Master in General Master Cadre as per the guidelines of roster system and notification issued from time to time in this regard. Even if the calculation is made on the basis of 7 or 9 posts determined for language cadre, one post of Headmaster goes to Dr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, being senior most physically handicapped candidate among both cadres i.e. language master/mistress and General Master/mistress. Thus, there is no illegality in the action of the official respondents and promotion of answering respondents.

13. Learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4 & 5 stated that respondent no. 3 was the senior most physically handicapped person in the category of language teacher and since promotion was to be carried out keeping in view the roster point and roster point was earmarked for the physically handicapped category, respondent No. 3 had been rightly promoted against this reserved vacancy. He further stated that respondents No. 4 & 5 were in a category different from the applicant and the applicant could not impugn their promotions as he himself had to be promoted from the Language teacher category. Learned counsel also stated that the applicant was not the senior most person in the Language category. There were two persons senior to him and even if the additional posts did become available, these persons had to be considered prior to the consideration of the applicant for promotion. These two persons had not impugned the selection of 2012 and the applicants OA appeared to be of the nature of a PIL.