DEVINDER KAUR Vs. RANI CHADHA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question of law raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether 'catch-up principle' as propounded in various judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, would be applicable so as to benefit the original applicant-respondent No. 1, who is a candidate belonging to General category. The instant petition is directed against the judgment dated 26.5.2004 (P-7) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') holding that the 'catch-up principle' would be available to original applicant-respondent No. 1 and on promotion to the post of Assistant in the office of Chief Architect, Department of Urban Planning, she would regain her seniority over the petitioner who was promoted as such against a roster point belonging to Scheduled Caste ahead of the original applicant-respondent No. 1. For the aforesaid view, the Tribunal has placed reliance on instructions dated 03.07.1986 (R-2) and proceeded to hold that the original applicant-respondent No. 1 would be entitled to regain her seniority on the ground that in the lower cadre of Steno Typist, she was senior to the petitioner. The view of the Tribunal is discernible from Para 6 and 7 of the judgment which reads as under :-

(2.) It is also pertinent to mention that on the basis of the aforesaid view expressed by the Tribunal, the gradation list of Senior Assistant circulated vide letter dated 04.08.2003 (A-1) was set aside and official respondents were directed to accord seniority to the original applicant-respondent as Senior Assistant over the petitioner in accordance with the instructions prevailing prior to 17.06.1995 with all consequential benefits, including grant of promotion on the post of Superintendent, if she is otherwise eligible according to the rules.

(3.) In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, it is necessary to notice few facts. The original applicant respondent No. 1 is a direct recruit on the post of Steno-Typist and she was appointed as such on 26.12.1974. She belonged to General category and was further promoted on the post of Junior Scale Stenographer on 24.09.1977. On the other hand, the petitioner, who belongs to reserved category of Scheduled Caste, was appointed as Steno Typist on 06.01.1983, which is more than eight years later. Obviously she is far junior to the original applicant in the cadre of Steno-typist. A roster point vacancy belonging to Scheduled Caste in the cadre of Senior Assistant became available in October, 1989 and as per the instructions issued by the official respondents, all vacant posts were required to be filled up by 31.03.1990. Accordingly, the petitioner was given promotion as Senior Assistant on 28.03.1990 and she joined as such on 29.03.1990. However, her promotion order was withdrawn on 26.04.1990, on the ground that she did not pass the Assistant Grade examination. She challenged the withdrawal of her promotion order by filing O.A. No. 492-CH of 1990. The Tribunal vide order dated 10.04.1997, set aside the order dated 28.03.1990 by giving liberty to the official respondents to issue fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner. However, the official respondents promoted the petitioner on the post of Senior Assistant vide order dated 06.06.1997 (P-2) w.e.f. 29.03.1990 with the condition that she would have to qualify Assistant Grade examination as and when conducted by the Chandigarh Administration.