CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs. SUMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals by special leave are directed against different orders of the central Administrative tribunal, Chandigarh cancelling the noticesissued by the appellant to the respondents and further directing the appellant not to revert the respondents from the promoted post. But the question of law involved being one and the same they were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. The short question that arises for consideration is whether promotions of these respondents on different dates in the year 1993 to the posts of Masters/mistress (TGTs) is contrary to the Statutory Recruitment Rules framed by the government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs in exercise of powers conferred by proviso under Article 309 of the Constitution called the Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) Group 'c' Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules").

(3.) We will consider the facts in one case for deciding the point in issue, namely, in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 11122 of 1996 which is directed against the order of the central Administrative tribunal, Chandigarh dated 12/10/1995 in OA No. 138/ch/95. In the said case Suresh Kumar, the respondent was a Classical teacher having been appointed as a Drawing teacher on 30/3/1972. He was promoted along with three others to the post of Social Studies Master on officiating basis on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee by order dated 24/4/1993. The said post of Social Studies Master borne in the School Cadre in Group 'c' and recruitment thereto since 1991 is governed by the Statutory Recruitment Rules. The appellant being of the opinion that the said promotion is contrary to the Recruitment Rules issued notice to the respondents as to why the said promotion be not withdrawn as the Recruitment Rules did not provide for promotion to the post of Master/mistress from amongst the Classical teachers. The notice was issued on 3/1/1995. The respondents though filed a representation pursuant to the notice issued by the appellant but before any decision could be taken by the appellant the said respondents approached the central Administrative tribunal with the prayer that show-cause notice issued by the appellant be quashed and the appellant be restrained from cancelling/withdrawing the promotion given to the respondents to the post of Social Studies Master on 29/4/1993. The appellant appeared before the tribunal and reiterated its stand to the effect that the Recruitment Rules do not provide for promotional avenue to the post of Master from amongst the Classical and Vernacular instructors and, therefore, the promotion having been made after the Rules came into force the said promotion is invalid and inoperative. It was also contended that prior to 1991 Rules coming into force appointments to the post of Master within Union Territory of Chandigarh were being made by direct recruitment and the departmental candidates were allowed to compete with the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange from time to time.