SANJAY SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 30.05.2007(P-1) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') holding that the post of Supervisor in the Sports Department, U.T., Chandigarh, which is a Group 'C' Non-Ministerial Posts, has to be filled up under the 50% quota by applying the principles governing appointment by promotion. On the basis of various judgments of Honourable the Supreme Court including the judgment rendered in the case of Y.V. Rangaiah Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao 1983(3) SCC 24 , it has been concluded by the Tribunal that the principle of 'old vacancy old rule' would apply and, therefore, the original applicant-respondent No. 5 Arun Kumar was held entitled to be considered for the available post of Supervisor in accordance with Rules which was applicable. He was otherwise held eligible under the old Rules before amendment. Accordingly, a direction has been issued to the respondent-Chandigarh Administration to consider his case for appointment to the post of Supervisor alongwith other departmental candidates under the Rules known as Chandigarh Administration Sports Department (Group 'C') Technical Recruitment Rules, 1990 (for brevity 'the 1990 rules') and if found suitable by the DPC then grant him promotion w.e.f. the date to be decided by the competent authority.

(2.) The facts which have led to the filing of the instant petition may first be noticed. The original applicant-respondent No. 5-Shri Arun Kumar approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 644-CH of 2004 seeking directions that he is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Supervisor. His case before the Tribunal was that he was passed Matriculation in second division and 10+2 in 3rd division. He was appointed as a Boatman in the Sports Department of Chandigarh Administration on 08.09.1990. He also put forward the claim that he obtained distinction in Ist and IInd State Level Chanmpionship and also participated in the National Level Championship. He gained experienced of more than 13 years and has a clean service record. His case further was that appointment to the post of Supervisor by way of promotion is only an avenue to advance and that the post is required to be filled up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by selection from amongst the departmental candidates by transfer. Thus, there was no quota for appointment by promotion. According to the averments made by him, one post of Supervisor was lying vacant since 2003 before the amendment of the 1990 Rules, which took place on 26.05.2004. His claim in nutshell was that he was required to be considered for promotion as per the old Rules governing the vacancy when it occurred and not in accordance with the latter rules known as the Sports Department, Union Territory, Chandigarh (Group 'C') Non-Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2004(for brevity, 'the 2004 Rules'). He has sought application of the 1990 rules. Apart from the U.T.Administration, Chandigarh, the original applicant- respondent No. 5 also impleaded the Union of India as a party respondent although the petitioner Shri Sanjay Sharma was not a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The only difference between the 1990 and 2004 Rules for appointment to the post of Supervisor is that the 1990 rules the qualification of matriculation with second division, a good sportsman having attained distinction (I, II, III positions) in State Level Championships is stipulated in addition to experience of maintenance of grounds and equipments with particular reference to the major recognised games. The desirable qualification is Graduation. On the other hand, in the 2004 rules, the requirement is passing of 10+2 examination or Senior Secondly examination from a recognised Board or Institution is second division, knowledge of organising sports tournaments or participation in State tournaments and having experience in maintenance of ground/sports fields with particular reference to the major recognised games. Therefore, a person, who is matric with second division has been made eligible under the 1990 rules but under 2004 rules, a person with 10+2 with second division has been made eligible. It is not disputed that original applicant-respondent No. 5 Arun Kumar did not have second division in 10+2 whereas the petitioner has the qualification of 10+2 second division but has did not have the qualification of matric with second division as per the old rules. Therefore, the controversy raised by the original applicant- respondent No. 5 before the Tribunal was that the old rules would govern the appointment on the post of Supervisor and he fulfilled the qualification prescribed under the old rules.

(3.) The stand of the U.T. Administration before the Tribunal was that under Rule 4 of the '1990 Rules', the post has to be filled up as per the qualification, age limit and other connected matters prescribed in the schedule and the schedule provided for filling up 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by selection from amongst the departmental candidates by transfer in respect of Supervisor. A specific stand has also been taken by the U.T. Administration that there was no provision in the Rules to fill up the post on promotion. According to the averments made in written statement by the U.T. Administration, there were three vacant posts of Supervisors and two of them fell to the share of the direct quota and one of them was to be filled by transfer from departmental candidates by selection. According to their stand, it was the prerogative of the competent authority to prescribe qualifications according to requirements of the post which have been done by notifying the rules under Art. 309 of the Constitution and that the original applicant- respondent No. 5 did not have the requisite qualifications.