NARINDER KAUR SETHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') on 28.10.2010, whereby an original application filed by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Head of Department (Modern Office Practice), Government Polytechnic for Women, Sector -10, Chandigarh, was declined.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as Instructor in the Government Polytechnic for Women, Sector -10, Chandigarh in the year 1978. She was promoted as Junior Lecturer in the year 1984 and was granted the status of Lecturer in the year 1992. Thereafter, the petitioner was given officiating charge of Head of Department (Modern Office Practices) in the year 1997 and also the officiating charge of Principal in the year 2009. Though the earlier challenge to the grant of officiating charge of Principal to the petitioner remained successful before the Tribunal, but such charge was taken away from the petitioner on 10.09.2009 and given to Smt. Vin Dosajh. In a challenge to the said order, the Tribunal directed the official respondents to hold a meeting of the regular Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the cases of those persons including the petitioner, who were holding the charge of officiating Head of the Department for regular promotion as such. In terms of such direction, a Review Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 28.05.2010, but the petitioner was not promoted.

(3.) AT the outset, both the learned counsel for the parties admit that in the matter of promotion, the rules and instructions as issued by the Government of Punjab are applied mutatis mutandis by the Chandigarh Administration. In support of the claim that the petitioner is eligible to be promoted, but has been arbitrarily ignored from promotion, reliance is placed upon Circular dated 06.09.2001 (Annexure A -5) issued by the Punjab Government (Department of Personnel), which has been adopted by the Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 12.05.2009, wherein it was observed as under: