UT CHANDIGARH Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union Territory of Chandigarh is in appeal against the order of the central Administrative Tribunal dated 7-12-1995 in OA No. 562 of 1994. The said application had been filed before the Tribunal by the respondent Avtar singh, who is still working as a Social Education and Panchayat Officer, chandigarh. The grievance of the respondent before the Tribunal was that he has been continuing as such Panchayat Officer and is not being considered for promotion to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer though in accordance with the Rules framed under the Panchayati Act he was entitled to be considered for promotion and if found suitable is entitled to be promoted to the post in question. Chandigarh Administration while filing their objections before the Tribunal contended therein that there is no sanctioned post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Rural development Department of Chandigarh Administration, and as such the contention of the applicant before the Tribunal is futile. The further contention of Chandigarh Administration was that the notified area of chandigarh having been notified as a tehsil under the provisions of the 1961 act, a full-time executive officer for the Panchayat Samiti is available and it is not necessary to have a Block Development Officer. The Tribunal on the basis of the material produced before it came to the conclusion that the contention of the Administration that there does not exist any post of Block development Officer is incorrect and in fact there is a sanctioned post of block Development Officer. The Tribunal also further came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 applies to the union Territory of Chandigarh and as such the post of Block Development officer is required to be created and filled up on a whole-time basis. With this conclusion, the Tribunal having directed that the respondent Avtar Singh be promoted to the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, if found suitable, the Administration is in appeal.

(2.) Ms Kamini Jaiswal appearing for the appellants contended that the conclusion of the Tribunal in para 9 to the effect that the stand taken by the respondent officials that there is no sanctioned post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer in the Rural Development Department has no substance, is incorrect and is based on misreading of the different letters issued from time to time by Chandigarh Administration. She further contended that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 has no application and that being the position and Chandigarh having been declared as a tehsil it is open to the Administration not to create any post of Block development Officer. She further argued that in any view of the matter, the direction of the Tribunal to promote the respondent to the post of Block development and Panchayat Officer is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as an employee under Article 16 of the Constitution has merely a right of consideration and the Court cannot be the appointing authority.

(3.) Mr P. C. Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj act, 1994 have been made applicable to Chandigarh by virtue of the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Accordingly, under the said Act, the Block Development and Panchayat Officer performs several duties and it would, therefore, be obligatory for the Administration to create and fill up the said post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Mr jain also fairly stated that what the respondent claims is a right of consideration for the post of Block Development and Panchayat Officer and though the Tribunal has used the expression "appoint" but the additional expression "if otherwise found suitable" is taken into consideration that it tantamounts to conferring right of consideration alone.