(1.) THE Union of India is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as 'CAT') dated6.11.2008 in OA 787/2008. By the impugned order, the CAT had directed the Union to strike off/quash column nos.9 & 12 of the Recruitment Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in 2005, in respect of the category of Laboratory Assistants to the extent they are applicable to 50% promotional quota.
(2.) THE facts necessary for deciding this case are that the respondents/applicants were working as group 'D' employees; they are 30 in number. They underwent the one year service training course from the Safdarjung Hospital where they were employed. They approached the CAT challenging the validity of Laboratory Assistants (Group C posts) Recruitment Rules, 2005 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') - specifically column nos. 9 and 12 thereof. These prescribed the eligibility and qualifications required for the post of Laboratory Assistants, for the 50% promotional quota to be filled by Laboratory Attendants. Their case was that under the pre -existing rules - which were in force prior to 2005 - i.e., the Laboratory Assistants in the Safdarjung Hospital (Group C posts) Recruitment Rules, 1987, the group 'D' employees were eligible to be considered for promotion provided they successfully completed one year's service training course preparatory to be promoted as Laboratory Assistants. The amended rules, which were in dispute before the CAT, to the extent they are relevant read as follows: -
(3.) THE Union of India contends that the impugned order to the extent it strikes down the Rules challenged by the applicants cannot be sustained. Prescribing technical qualifications for purposes of recruitment channel, i.e., promotion to fill up vacancies, based upon possession of professional or technical qualifications is a matter of executive policy and should not have been interfered with by the CAT. It was contended that the exercise of choice by the executive government in deciding the appropriateness of particular qualification is essential for the purpose of recruitment or promotion and should not be interfered with at all by the Courts unless there is patent arbitrariness, if such qualification cannot be possessed, or if there is no infrastructure to acquire the qualification. Learned counsel also submitted that the mere fact that none of the applicants possess the DMLT qualification could not have impelled the CAT to strike down the rules.