UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Vs. GEETA MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE passage of time in the present case has infact altered the contours of the controversy. The private respondents before us (who are respondents No. 1 to 4) were the original applicants who filed Original Application No. 952 -CH of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, post their retirement praying that since they had been given officiating charge of the post of Principal against the available sanctioned vacancies while they were working as Lecturers in Government Colleges, they should be granted the same pay and allowances as applicable to the post of Principal on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" in the scale of Rs. 16400 -22400 as admissible to Principals after 25 years of total service as Lecturers/Principals. The reason why we say that the contours of the controversy stand altered is on account of a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandigarh Administration through the Director Public Instructions (Colleges), Chandigarh Vs. Usha Khetarpal Waie and others : 2011(9) SCC 645. That case filed by the private respondents also dealt with the issue of filling up of vacancies of the post of Principals of the Colleges through advertisement under new rules where the private respondents before us were working in officiating capacity. The controversy before the Supreme Court arose out of the endeavour of the Chandigarh Administration to fill up the vacancies by issuing an advertisement on 14.07.2001 post framing of Chandigarh Educational Service (Group -A Gazetted) Government Arts and Science College Rules, 2000 (for short 'Recruitment Rules') vide notification dated 29.3.2000 published in the Gazette dated 01.04.2000. These Rules were stated to have been framed in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission ('UPSC for short) and sent to the Government of India for being issued in the name of the President of India. The private respondents before us assailed that endeavour on the ground that the Administrator of the Union Territory had no power to frame the Rules and thus, infact, there were no Rules existing in accordance with law. The sequitur was that the Service Rules of Punjab which were adopted by the Chandigarh Administration by a notification dated 31.01.1992 w.e.f. 1.4.1991 would continue to hold the field. This plea had found favour with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the Original Application filed by the private respondents before us and the endeavour of the Chandigarh Administration to assail the same before the High Court also proved futile. However, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment disagreed with the view taken by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court concluding that even in the absence of valid Rules it could not be said that the advertisement was invalid. It was observed that in exercise of executive powers the Administration could issue administrative instructions from time to time in regard to all matters which were not governed by any statute or the Rules framed under the Constitution or a statute. Incidentally, this view was adopted by us in similar situation in Civil Writ Petition No. 9640 -CAT of 2004 'Kulmohan Singh Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others' decided on 20.02.2014.