MADAN MOHAN Vs. FINANCE SECY UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. The appellant had initially been appointed as a Clerk way back in May, 1970, and he was confirmed against the said post by order dated 28-5-1974: While so continuing, he was selected for being appointed as a Junior Auditor under the Local Fund accounts, Chandigarh Administration, and by order dated 20th January, 1978, he was appointed to the said post of Junior Auditor. While he was continuing in the post of Junior Auditor, he was sent on deputation to Chandigarh Scheduled Caste Financial and Development Corporation as an Assistant on his grade pay plus the deputation allowances. While he was continuing in the said Scheduled Caste Financial and Development Corporation, his juniors in the rank of Junior Auditor were confirmed. He therefore made a representation for being considered for confirmation as Junior Auditor. This representation, however, was rejected by the authority on 2-11-1982 on the premise that as he was holding a lien against the substantive post of clerk, he could not be considered for confirmation against the post of Junior Auditor in the Local Audit Department. He thereafter approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment having rejected the O. A. , he has approached this Court.

(2.) The question for consideration is whether a confirmed employee in a cadre on being substantively appointed to yet another cadre, if goes on deputation, whether his right for being considered for confirmation can be taken away. It is not disputed that the appellant had been appointed to the post of Junior Auditor after being selected, and had been posted against a substantive vacancy. The stand of the Chandigarh Administration in rejecting his prayer for being considered for confirmation, on the face of it, is erroneous inasmuch as his existence of a lien against the confirmed post of clerk will not debar from him for being considered for confirmation in the post of Junior Auditor. The Tribunal, however, committed yet another error on the ground that since he had lien against his permanent post, he was not entitled to be considered for confirmation against the post of Junior Auditor. Since the appellant had been appointed on being selected as a Junior Auditor against a substantive vacancy, and was sent on deputation to the Scheduled Caste Corporation, when persons junior to him as Junior Auditor were confirmed as Junior Auditor, he was entitled for that consideration. Such non-consideration for the purpose of confirmation as Junior Auditor infringes his right under Article 14 and 16. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and direct the Chandigarh Administration to consider his case for confirmation as against the post of Junior Auditor.

(3.) The appeal is disposed of accordingly Appeal disposed of accordingly.