UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge herein is to the order dated 28.01.2016 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, has directed to appoint respondent No.2 as Assistant District Attorney in the Directorate of Prosecution, Chandigarh Administration.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. 10 posts of Assistant District Attorney were advertised by the Chandigarh Administration, out of which 03 were reserved for Other Backward Class category. The prescribed qualification was two years' experience at Bar as an Advocate. Respondent No.2 who belongs to Other Backward Class category also applied. He has been practicing as a lawyer at District Courts, Karnal from 03.10.2012 to 12.06.2014. Thereafter, he joined as Law Officer in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking. His practice at the Bar was about 1 year and 8 months, i.e., short of 4 months.

(3.) In a dispute over his eligibility, the question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether the experience gained by respondent No.2 as Law Officer in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking while appearing before the Labour Court on regular and continuous basis, can be counted as experience at Bar The Tribunal has answered the question in affirmative. Since respondent No.2 was meanwhile interviewed under the interim direction issued by the Tribunal and he was declared successful in the final result, the Tribunal has issued the direction for his appointment as per merit in the final result.