BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2009 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal), where by the order dated 25.5.2006 promoting respondent No. 4, Vishnu Dutt from the post of Peon to the post of Clerk on the basis of the result of typing test conducted by respondent No. 2, has been upheld by dismissing OA No. 366-CH of 2006 filed by the petitioner and others.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as discernible from the Original Application are that the petitioner Bharat Bhushan alongwith two others Makhan Singh and Amarjeet Singh had been working as Group 'D' employees with respondent No. 2 since 24.7.1996, 10.2.1999 and 23.6.1999, respectively. All of them possess qualification of 10+2. As per the policy/circular, 15% of the posts of Clerks are to be filled up by group 'D' employees having 5 years regular service in the cadre; possessing matriculation qualification with speed of 30 w.p.m. in English type writing with maximum age of 45 years. It has been further averred that the respondent-Department decided to fill up one post out of two posts lying vacant by way of promotion from Group 'D' employees against 15% quota. It was not intimated whether that post falls within the reserved category or not. Initially the test was scheduled to be conducted on 22.3.2006 but was deferred on various dates and finally the typing test was conducted on 12.4.2006. The result of the same was not disclosed and the junior most amongst them, i.e., respondent No. 4 was promoted vide impugned order, Annexure A-1.

(3.) It was further averred in OA that the test was conducted by Shri Surjit Singh, Stenography Instructor of Central Crafts Institute, who miscalculated the mistakes in the typing test and deducted double marks which is against the instructions. It is further stated that as per the Government instructions in the event of non-qualifying of the typing test and non-finding the Group 'D' employees otherwise eligible for promotion, their regularization can be deferred or the increments of the employee can be stopped till he qualifies the typing test or crosses the age of 45 years, since there is an exemption from qualifying typing test after 45 years. It is further averred that respondent No. 4 has been selected only as a result of favoritism and on account of his higher speed in typing test. There is no provision in the rules that if a junior employee obtains higher speed in type writing, then he can supercede his senior. Promotion to a post is made on seniority-cum-fitness basis and, therefore, the right of the senior cannot be frustrated on this account.