UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges order dated 30.6.2004 (P-6), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 1.8.2002, on the basis of her selection and appointment, Smt. Roopa Jolly-respondent No. 2 joined the service as Lecturer of Music (Vocal) on contract basis at a fixed salary of Rs. 2,500/- per month (P-1). On 4.10.2002, she was relieved from her duties because the petitioner department made fresh appointments of contract teachers as a result of advertisement dated 10.8.2002. On 16.1.2003, respondent No. 2 was allowed to join again, inasmuch as, the selections made pursuant to advertisement dated 10.8.2002 were challenged before the Tribunal, which were set aside in the case of Krishan Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, decided on 2.12.2002. She continued to perform Thereafter, respondent No. 2 continued performing her duties till 28.7.2003. On 28.7.2003, the Principal, Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh-petitioner No. 5, directed respondent No. 2 to report to the District Education Officer, UT, Chandigarh-respondent No. 4 for her new teaching assignment as Lecturer in Music on contract basis. It is claimed that this was done inadvertently because there was no post in the school of Sector 16, Chandigarh and without verifying the availability of post in that school, petitioner No. 4 directed respondent No. 2 to report in the school of Sector 16. Moreover, the post of Lecturer in Music in Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 33-D, Chandigarh, was declared surplus due to annual comprehensive staff review and work load in the subject. The post of Lecturer in Music (Vocal) was converted into the post of Lecturer in History and since there was no need of Lecturer in Music (Vocal) and no post existed, the contractual appointment of respondent No. 2 came to an end.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 filed Original Application No. 704/CH/2003 before the Tribunal (P-2), which was tagged alongwith other connected cases/matters with regard to appointment on contractual basis. On 27.8.2003, the Tribunal passed an order in OA No. 429/CH/2003 and connected Original Applications including OA No. 704/CH/2003 filed by respondent No. 2 and disposed of all the original applications by giving certain directions on different issues involved in the said original applications (P-3). Since the Tribunal did not give any finding/observation on the issue of conversion of posts from one subject to another, therefore, on 21.9.2003, respondent No. 2 filed an application for recalling the order dated 27.8.2003, passed by the Tribunal (P-4). It seems that during the course of arguments of the aforementioned application when counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 2 felt that he would not be able to persuade the Tribunal on the issue of conversion of post from one subject to another, he made a prayer that respondent No. 2 may be considered for appointment to a lower post of TGT in which cadre a number of vacancies were available. Accordingly, the Tribunal passed an order dated 30.6.2004 directing the Director, Public Instruction (Schools), Chandigarh Administration to consider the case of the applicant- respondent No. 2 for appointment against any one of the posts in TGT grade during the ensuing academic session (P-6). Paras 4, 5 and 6 of the order dated 30.6.2004, passed by the Tribunal are reproduced as under :-