CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. USHA KHETERPAL WAIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) There are four Government Arts and Science colleges in Union Territory of Chandigarh. Till 1988, the Chandigarh Administration, Appellant herein, used to fill the vacancies of the post of Principal of the Arts and Science colleges by deputation from neighbouring States of Punjab and Haryana. When the post of Principal in Government College for Boys, Sector 11, Chandigarh was due to fall vacant on 29.2.1988 on superannuation of a deputationist, two UT cadre lecturers filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, seeking a direction that UT cadre lecturers from the Government Arts & Science Colleges should be considered for the post of Principal instead of taking someone on deputation from the neighbouring states. The said application was ultimately disposed of with a direction to the Chandigarh Administration to consider the case of the applicants and other lecturers of UT cadre who may fall within the zone of consideration as may be determined by a competent authority, for regular appointment to the post of Principals of the Government Arts & Science colleges, on the basis of relevant criteria, and appoint those who were found suitable. In pursuance of the said order, the Chandigarh Administration fixed 30 years experience as Lecturer as the eligibility criterion for promotion of lecturers to the post of Principal, though at that time (1989-90) there were no lecturer with 30 years experience in the cadre. As no UT cadre lecturer possessed such experience, again deputationists were appointed as Principals in the said colleges.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the UT cadre lecturers again approached the Tribunal and their applications were allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 12.1.1991, quashing the order prescribing 30 years experience as also the order appointing deputationists. Thereafter, whenever vacancies arose, it is stated that the Appellant promoted UT cadre lecturers as Principals. It may be mentioned that persons so promoted did not possess a Ph.D. degree.