9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separate administrative hierarchy. The question to be decided in this appeal is whether in 1980 promotions within the Engineering Department were to be made section wise or cadre wise. Section 31 of the 1966 Act empowers the Central Government, after consultation with the Institute, to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act by notification in the Official Gazette. Some of the matters that the rules may provide for have been listed in Section 31. These include under clause (f) of Section (2) to Section 31: "the number of officers and employees that may be appointed by the Institute and the manner of such appointment"; Section 32 empowers the Institute to frame Regulations with the prior approval of the Central Government providing inter-alia for: "the tenure of office, salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of the Directors and other officers and employees of the Institute including teachers appointed by the Institute". On 29th March 1967, the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette made the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, Rules, 1967 (referred to hereafter as the Rules). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 34. Seniority : - Seniority of employees of the Institute in each category shall be determined by the order of merit in which they were selected for appointment to the grade in question, those selected on earlier occasion being ranked senior to those selected later: Provided that the seniority interse of employees, other than the teaching staff of the Institute shall be determined by the length of continuous service on a post in a particular service." In the background of these provisions, we may now consider the facts of this case. The respondent No.1 was appointed on 16th July 1975. He was recruited to the post of Technologist Grade II (Electrical). The letter of appointment stated, "while employed in the Institute you will be liable to be posted at any place at any time under the control of this Institute". The respondent No. 1 was transferred as Technologist Grade II (Estate) in 1976. R.K. Wadhwa, respondent No. 3 was appointed as Technologist Grade II in January 1975. Shri K.S. Sharma (the respondent No. 4) joined the post of Technologist Grade II on 13.11.75. Respondent No. 5, R.K. Goel joined the post of Technologist Grade II on 1.6.78. On 7th August 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... far as R.K. Goel was concerned, he was promoted to the post of Technologist Grade I (Public Health) as he was "the only eligible candidate". K.S. Sharma was selected out of two candidates for promotion to the post of Technologist Grade I in the Stores Management Section. It is clear from the minutes that the DPC did not consider the respondent No. 1's candidature for promotion to any of the other Sections apart from the Electrical Section. Pursuant to the recommendations of the DPC, orders were issued to R.K. Wadhwa, K.S. Sharma and R.K. Goel promoting them as Technologist Grade I at the appellant/Institute with immediate effect. In none of these orders of promotion was it mentioned that the promotion was made within any particular section. The respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, one R.K. Sareen, filed a writ application on 26th May 1980 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It was claimed that since 1976 there was one single cadre of Technologist Grade II and that the seniority list had to be worked out on the basis of such single cadre. Their grievance was that despite their seniority, they were not considered against the available vacancies in the post of Techn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Institute in 1981. In 1982, the respondent No. 1 was transferred from the Estate Branch to the Engineering Department and was subsequently posted on temporary basis as Technologist Grade II responsible for the following sections; 1. Electrical Section 2. Public Health Section 3. Air Conditioning Section 4. Lift Section and Other Engineering Services The respondent No. 1 was then shifted as Technologist Grade II Planning Division and then again from the Planning Division to the Stores Sub Division. According to the respondent No. 1 despite the High Court's order, promotions continued to be made by the appellants from Technologist Grade II personnel to the post of Technologist Grade I but the respondent No. 1 was not considered for any of the promotions. It has been claimed that since R.K. Wadhwa left the service, the respondent No. 1 should have been promoted in the vacancy so created. According to the respondent No. 1, I.C. Verma who was junior to the respondent No. 1 by three years and who was below the respondent No. 1 in the 1980 panel for Technologist Grade I (Electrical) as considered by the DPC, has been promoted as Technologist Grade I on 11th August 1988 without cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons. They say that the respondent No. 1 was recruited to the post of Technologist Grade II (Electrical) and could not be considered for any post other than Technologist Grade I (Electrical) since a distinction has been drawn between the Technologist Grade I posts on the basis of the workload in the different sections. It is said that in 1980 only four posts of Technologist Grade I in the field of Electrical, Public Health, Civil and Stores were sought to be filled up and that the respondent No. 1 was duly considered for promotion to the post of Technologist Grade I (Electrical) but R.K. Wadhwa was found more meritorious. As far as the post of Technologist Grade I (Stores) was concerned, it is claimed that K.S.Sharma who was promoted in 1980 was in fact senior to the respondent No. 1. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 was considered again by the DPC for promotion to the post of Technologist Grade I (Electrical) on 2nd August 2001 but his juniors were found better suited for promotion. It is said that since 1983 there has been a restructuring of the Engineering Department and the old cadres have been abolished and new cadres created under four different Divisions viz. Civil, Bio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is every possibility of favourtism and arbitrariness in as much as the persons of choice can be easily posted in the sections where there are chances of promotion. I am of the considered view that merely by posting a particular person in a particular section, his chance of promotion cannot be marred if he is otherwise suitable and eligible for the higher post particularly when it is not in dispute that seniority of Technologist Grade II is common. More so, the distribution of posts of Technologists shows that there are some sections where there is no post of Technologist Grade II but there exists post of Technologist Grade I vice versa. Hence from this angle also promotion cannot be branchwise. So the respondents were duty bound to consider all the incumbents falling within consideration zone for promotion from the post of Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I irrespective of their posting in a particular selection." ( Emphasis supplied) The direction on the appellants as far as R.K. Sareen was concerned was to consider his claim along with other suitable and eligible candidates "for the post of Technologist Grade I with reference to DPC for which respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact operate in 1980. As has been noted earlier when the respondent No. 1 was appointed, his letter of appointment stated quite clearly that while the respondent was employed in the Institute he was liable to be placed "at any place at any time under the control of the Institute". There was nothing in the letter of appointment which limited the respondent No.1's posting only to the Electrical Section in the Department of Engineering. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was in fact posted as Technologist Grade II (Estate) and his application for further promotion was rejected by the authorities solely on the ground that there was no vacancy to the post of Technologist Grade I (Estate). Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 has been posted in different sections other than the Electrical Section as noted above. The submission of the appellants that he was looking after the said sections only for verifying the bills is unacceptable having regard to the language of the posting orders. Even if there were rules governing promotions from Technologist Grade II to Technologist Grade I, it is clear that the practice followed by the appellant/Institute was to treat the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stances. The so called seniority lists have been produced by the appellants before this Court for the first time. It has not been shown how the seniority lists were prepared or under which statutory provision. No leave was obtained prior to the submission of these documents, nor do they form part of the Court records nor are they supported by any affidavit. They cannot be taken for consideration by this Court in the circumstances. The respondent No. 1's writ petition was filed about 23 years ago. On 30th April, 1983 an office order was passed abolishing the previously sanctioned posts in the cadre of the Engineering Department which were: Sr.No. Name of the post No. of posts 1. Superintending Hospital Engineer 1 2. Hospital Engineers Mechanical 1 Electrical Air-conditioning 1 Bio medical 1 5 Material Management 1 Civil 1 3. Technologists Grade I 14 4. Technologists Grade II 16 It is noteworthy that the posts of Technologists Grade I and II were not described with reference to any particular section. Indeed even in the revised cadre the absence of any description continued. There may be a new nomenclature for the post of Technologist Grade-I, but this shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
