Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: data processing assistant in Pemba T. Bhutia vs Union Of India & Anr. on 11 July, 2008Matching Fragments
25. The decision of the Supreme Court in Chandraprakash Madhav Rao Dadwa v. UOI (1998) 8 SCC 154 relied upon by the petitioner also has no relevance to the facts of the present case. In Chandraprakash Madhav Rao Dadwa (supra) the Data Processing Assistants appointed in 1978, whose promotional post was Data Processing Supervisors, were sought to be redesignated as Data Entry Operators Grade B. (1350-2200). They challenged the same and demanded that they be designated as Data Processing Assistants 'A' (1600-2660). The Government justified the said redesignation and fixation of the pay scale on the ground that in pursuance of the Sheshagiri Committees Report, there was a change in the essential qualifications for appointment as Data Processing Assistants 'A', and additional functions were now required to be performed by Data Processing Assistants `A' (1600-2660).
26. The Supreme Court did not accept the stand of the Government and held that the change in the essential qualifications or WP(C) No.5129/1999 page 23 of 50 the additional functions now required to be performed by the appellants could not retrospectively affect the initial recruitment of the appellants as Data Process Assistants, no effect their Confirmation as Data Processing Assistants done in 1989. Recruitment qualifications could not be altered or applied with retrospective effect. The changes in the qualifications for recruitment could be made effective for future recruitment processes, but could not affect those who were already recruited. To apply the changed recruitment qualifications retrospectively would be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once again, we do not appreciate how this decision has any applicability in the facts of the present case. The petitioners, as aforesaid, under the CSER 1995 did not get any vested right to be granted permission to reappear in CSE 1997 while retaining the allocation made on the basis of CSE 1996. CSER 1996 did not have any retrospective operation either. We, therefore, reject this submission of the petitioner.