RITA AHUJA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) BRIEF facts of the applicant's case run thus: The applicant was appointed as a Tailor Group B Tradesman on 23.9.1982 in the respondent -Department. The trade of Tailor was declared as Skilled, and she was declared as Skilled Tradesman with effect from the date of her initial appointment. As per the Army Ordnance Corps (Technical Supervisory Posts) Recruitment Rules,1980 (hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules of 1980), the post of Part II Cadre Chargeman is filled up by promotion among Group B Tradesmen with not less than 8 years total service who have passed the trade test. In the year 1994, she passed the requisite trade test for promotion. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, issued an order dated 20.5.2003 for restructuring of Cadre of Artisan Staff in Defence Establishments. As per the said order, the grade structure in the industrial as well as in the non -industrial trades was modified with effect from 1.1.1996 as (i) Skilled, (ii) Highly Skilled, and (iii) Master Craftsman. In January 2009, the Special ACR of the applicant was sent to the concerned authority for consideration of her case by the DPC for promotion to the grade of Chargeman Part II Cadre with retrospective effect. The CVD, Delhi Cantt., illegally promoted Shri Salim Khan, who was junior to the applicant. This was pointed out by the concerned authority, vide letter dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure A/9). She made a representation dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure A/10) requesting the concerned authority to consider her case for promotion to the post of Chargeman as she had qualified the Trade Test for the post of Chargeman in the year 1994. By letter dated 20.10.2009(Annexure A/11), she was supplied information under the RTI Act that the Special ACRs in respect of eligible Tailors and Upholsters as per seniority list circulated vide office letter dated 10.5.2004 were requisitioned to consider their candidature for promotion to Chargeman Part II Cadre as per unamended rules to fill up the vacancies occurred during 2003 to 31st December 2005, along with applicants in OA No. 2112 of 2007, in compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 19.8.2008. Total 120 cases were screened against 34 vacancies duly constituted by Special Review DPC which met on 23rd and 24th March 2009. Her case was also considered by the said DPC. Her name appeared at Sl. No. 77 in the seniority list against 34 vacancies. In view of her relatively low seniority, she could not be recommended for inclusion in the panel by the said DPC. After receiving the said information, she made a representation dated 6.11.2009 (Annexure A/12) stating that out of total 120 persons enlisted and considered for promotion, 52 Tailors, whose names appeared above her name, stood retired from service and therefore, her name would figure at sl. No. 25 in the list of eligible of persons. She also stated that as 34 vacancies were available, she ought to have been recommended by the DPC for promotion to the post of Chargeman Part II Cadre; her actual position in the list of eligible persons being at Sl. No. 25. While the matter stood thus, the Army Ordnance Corps Tailor (Group C post) Industrial Recruitment Rules, 2009, (hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules of 2009) were notified on 18.12.2009. As per the Recruitment Rules of 2009, Tailor (Skilled) can be promoted to the post of Tailor (Highly Skilled), whereas Tailor (Skilled) was eligible for promotion to the post of Chargeman Part II Cadre under the Recruitment Rules of 1980. The concerned authority of the respondent -Department, vide letter dated 15.5.2010, intimated the applicant that irrespective of her seniority, the applicant could not be considered for promotion to Highly Skilled Grade unless she passed the Trade Test for Highly Skilled Grade. Thereafter, the applicant made representations dated 15.6.2010 and 29.11.2010(Annexure A/15 and A/16 respectively) requesting the departmental authorities for considering her case for promotion to the post of Chargeman. Although she passed the trade test for the post of Chargeman in the year 1994, she appeared for and passed the trade test for the Highly Skilled Grade in the month of December 2011.

(3.) REFUTING the stand taken by the respondents in their counter reply, the applicant has filed a rejoinder reply wherein she has more or less reiterated the same averments. She has also reiterated the fact that she passed the trade test for Highly Skilled grade in the month of December 2011.