ICAR AND ANOTHER Vs. CHANCHAL RANI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Director, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (CSSRI), Karnal, Haryana have challenged the quashment of the communications issued by them on 29.4.2013, 24.5.2013 and 2.8.2013.

(2.) Respondent No.1 Chanchal Rani who had acquired 1 year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology joined the petitionersOrganization at Karnal as T-1 (Laboratory Technician) on 19.1.1989. She was promoted under Assessment Promotion Scheme as T-2 (Laboratory Assistant) w.e.f. 1.1.1995 and as T-1-3 (Laboratory Assistant) w.e.f. 1.1.2000 vide order dated 3.8.2005. Thereafter, she was placed in the Grade T-II-3 w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and granted merit promotion to the grade of T-4. She was also granted further promotion to T-5 (Technical Officer) w.e.f. 1.1.2010. All those promotions were recommended by Assessment Committee/DPC approved by the Director, CSSRI, Karnal. Respondent No.1 has stated that removal of category barrier from Category I to Category II was considered by the DPC on the ground that she had passed 1 year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology. The petitioners vide letter dated 27.10.2007 sought clarification from the Director General, Health Department, Haryana as to whether 1 year Course/Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology was equivalent to 3 years' Diploma in the same discipline. The Health Department vide letter dated 10.12.2007 clarified that 1 year Laboratory Technician Diploma was recognized by the Haryana Government for the purpose of appointment, as no other course was available. On 29.4.2013, petitioner No.1 informed petitioner No.2 that 1 year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology possessed by respondent No.1 cannot be considered relevant for removal of category barrier from Category I to Category II. Petitioner No.2 issued show cause notice to the respondent No.1. to explain as to why her promotion from T-2 to T-II-3 should not be considered.

(3.) The writ petitioners have contended that respondent No.1 was not eligible for promotion to T-3 under five yearly assessment, as she had not met the necessary qualification. The case of respondent No.1 for promotion was decided by the petitioner No.2 without getting the approval from petitioner No.1. It is contended by the writ petitioners that they have taken a right decision.