S.P. RANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, BY ITS SECRETARY, THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL TIBETAN SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION, THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TIBETAN SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION AND RAMESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 3Sri. S.P. Rana (Petitioner in W.P. No. 37056/09) was appointed as Dy. Education Officer on 25.10.02. The revised recruitment rules came into force on 15.6.07 by which the post Dy. Education Officer is made as feeder cadre for the purpose of promotion to the post of Education Officer Grade (Training) under 25% quota. The recruitment rules reveal that four posts of Education Officers are available. (one each for the discipline of science, Social Science, English and Training). Thus, it is clear that one post out of four posts (i.e., 25% quota) is to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Dy. Educational Officer. On 21.6.07, the Departmental promotional committee (DPC) has recommended the case of Mr. Rana for the post of Education Officer, however, the case of Mr. Ramesh Chandra was not recommended since he was not from Dy. Education Officer's cadre, consequently, Mr. S.P. Rana was promoted as Education Officer on 22.6.07. Questioning the promotion of Mr. Rana and questioning the revised recruitment rules, Mr. Ramesh chandra approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Application No. 217/09 which came to be allowed on 18th September, 2009. Consequently, the recruitment rules in so far as they relate to providing 25% by promotion from the cadre of Dy. Education Officer were quashed. As a consequence thereof, the promotion of Mr. Rana also stood quashed. The order of the Tribunal is questioned in these writ petitions.

(2.) W .P. No. 37056/09 is filed Mr. S.P. Rana whose promotion was quashed. W.P. No. 37055/09 is filed by the Union of India being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal quashing revised recruitment rules.

(3.) THE Tribunal has quashed the revised recruitment rules in so far as they relate to providing promotion to the cadre of Dy. Education Officer by observing thus: 26. The discussions in para 7, 8 and 25 above would show that only the post of Deputy Education Officer has been made by a Feeder Grade for promotion to the post of Education Officer. The reasons for excluding the posts of Principal Grade II/Vice Principal which are in a higher scale of pay are not indicated. Incidentally they are eligible for direct recruitment. It is also seen that there is only one post of Deputy Education Officer and the number of posts of Principal Gr. II/Vice Principal, etc., are much more in number. No reasons are forthcoming for this classification. The purported nexus is also not spelt out. Hence, having regard to the principles of law laid down by Apex Court and which have been summarized in para 19 and 24(iv) above, we hold that, that part of the present amendment, which makes only Deputy Education Officer as a feeder Grade for promotion is bad in law. It is quashed and set aside. Consequently, the promotion of private respondent to the post of Education Officer is also quashed.