LAWS(P&H)-2017-1-249

PREETINDER KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

Decided On January 16, 2017
PREETINDER KAUR Appellant
V/S
Union Territory, Chandigarh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition for quashing of office order dated 11.09.2014 and memo dated 24.09.2014 whereby requiring the steno-typists of the respondent-corporation including petitioner for appearing in the Stenography Test (English) to be held on 15.10.2014 without considering the claim of the petitioner for promotion as Senior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. August 2012.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist (English) in the year 200 She was seeking promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer. As per rules, it was a post to be filled by promotion from amongst steno typist having five years regular service in the cadre after appointment thereto provided they qualify the departmental test at the speed of 120 W.P.M. in stenography (English) and 30 W.P.M. in transcripting the same. In the year 2012, the respondent-Corporation initiated the process to fill up four posts of Senior Scale Stenographer, three for general category and one for the reserved category. The petitioner was at Sr. No.3 in the Seniority list. Admittedly, she committed 5% mistakes in the test. At that time, the issue before the Selection Committee was whether a person who had committed 5% mistakes would be considered to have qualified or not since there was another instructions of the Punjab Government which limited the consideration to 4% mistakes. The Committee decided to fill up two posts and decided to seek clarification from the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration as to whether the qualification of 4% mistakes would be imposed or not. Admittedly, the clarification was given by the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration vide document (Annexure P-7) in which it was clarified that the circular of the Punjab Government on which the Committee had placed reliance was not applicable and the qualification would be 5% mistakes.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the proceedings of the Selection Committee wherein the said Committee has held as follows:-