PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: VIJAY KUMARI DATE OF JUDGMENT09/09/1993 BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) PANDIAN, S.R. (J) CITATION: 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 84 JT 1993 (5) 307 1993 SCALE (3)697 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.
2. Heard the counsel for the parties.
3. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,
allowing the petition filed by the respondent in O.A. No.
2551 of 1990. The Union of India is the appellant.
4. The respondent, Vijay Kumari was appointed as a Lab.
Attendant in the Women’s Polytechnic, Directorate of
Technical Education, Delhi Administration on October 8, 1973
in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. She continued in that post
till February 22, 1988 i.e., for a period of about 15 years.
For the last four years i.e., from May 16, 1984 to February
22, 1988 she was teaching the students of two-year diploma
course in Secretarial Practice (Hindi).
+ Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10526 of 1991
85
On February 23, 1988 she was promoted to the post of Junior
Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs 2000-3200. On September 19,
1988 she was reverted to the post of Lab. Attendant with
effect from August 23, 1988 under an order which reads as
follows :
“In continuation of this Directorate order of
even number dated July 24, 1988, and with
prior approval of Secretary, Training and
Technical Education, Miss Vijay Kumari,
appointed as Jr. Lecturer, Secretarial
Practice (Hindi), on purely ad hoc and
emergent basis stands reverted to her original
post of Laboratory Attendant, w.e.f. August
23, 1988.”
5. Complaining against the said order, the respondent,
Miss Vijay Kumari approached the Tribunal on December 3,
1990. She characterised the impugned order of reversion as
mala fide, discriminatory and contrary to rules. The Union
of India in its counter-affidavit disputed the various
averments made by the respondent. It is stated that
according to the rules in force up to June 18, 1988, she was
not qualified for being appointed as Junior Lecturer.
According to those rules, only persons with a second
division degree in B.A./B.Com. with two years’ diploma in
Secretarial Practice from the recognised university were
eligible. Yet another qualification for eligibility was
three years’ teaching experience in the field of
English/Hindi Stenography in a recognised institution. As
against these prescribed qualifications, the respondent
possessed a third division degree in B.A., a third division
degree in M.A. Hindi and a diploma in Secretarial Practice.
It is stated that the respondent had undoubtedly performed
the duties attached to the post of Junior Lecturer for a
period of four years and thereafter was promoted temporarily
as Junior Lecturer, but that was because no qualified
persons were available for the said post. It is further
stated that along with others the respondent’s candidature
was also considered “on the basis of proposed amended
qualifications” but the Staff Selection Committee which met
on May 19, 1988 did not find any of the candidates including
the respondent suitable for the said post. It was proposed
to call for fresh applications for filling up the said post,
but before that could be done, the said post itself stood
abolished by virtue of the order dated July 13, 1988 issued
in implementation of revised staff structure based on Madan
Committee recommendations.
6. The Tribunal relied upon two circumstances in favour of
the respondent:
(a) The proceedings of the Delhi Administration,
Directorate of Technical Education dated April 27, 1989 on
the subject of “adjustment and drawal of pay of surplus
staff’. Under this proceedings communicated to the
Principals of various Polytechnics, the Delhi Administration
directed that “the pay of the affected officials may be
drawn as indicated therein”. The said proceedings refers to
33 persons in various categories. It indicates which person
shall draw pay against which post. A number of lady Junior
Lecturers are permitted to draw pay against the posts of
Lady Lecturers specified against their respective names.
The name of the respondent occurs at serial No. 5 as a
Junior Lecturer. She is also permitted to draw the pay
against the post of Lady Lecturer [Secretarial Practice
(Hindi)], but this is limited only up to August 22, 1988.
The Tribunal says that while not limiting the period for any
other person mentioned in the said proceedings, providing
such limitation in the case of respondent alone amounts to
discrimination; and (b) The letter from the Ministry of
Human Resource Development, Department of Education,
Government of India dated
86
September 25, 1987 addressed to the Secretary, Technical
Education, Delhi Administration, which stated that :
.lm15
“The existing staff which will be declared surplus by virtue
of the implementation of Madan Committee recommendations may
be absorbed in the revised structure provided they fulfill
the necessary prescribed qualifications in the required
post. However, the existing staff members who do not have
the requisite qualifications for appointment in a particular
grade should be given an opportunity to upgrade/improve
their qualifications within a period of 8 years and they be
sent for this purpose to the appropriate institutions under
the available schemes.”
7. In the light of the said decision of the Government of
India, the Tribunal said, the reversion of the respondent
from the post of Junior Lecturer to her substantive post of
Lab. Attendant is not tenable. She ought to be continued
in the post of Junior Lecturer and be given an opportunity
to upgrade/improve her qualifications within a period of
eight years and thereafter absorbed in the appropriate post.
In this connection, the Tribunal also relied upon the
opinion of the Delhi Administration, Service Department
given on December 30, 1988 which reads as follows :
“If Smt Vijay Kumari continues on the post of
Junior Lecturer on ad hoc basis, her extension
on this higher post can be considered by the
department. But in case she has already been
reverted to the lower post as stated in X on
pre-page, it may not be advisable to promote
her again to this higher post even for a
limited period unless the department feels
justified to do so.”
8. So far as the first circumstance relied upon by the
Tribunal is concerned, the Tribunal has not taken care to
verify whether the other Junior Lecturers mentioned in the
said proceedings are similarly situated as the respondent.
Without such a verification and a finding, it would not be
advisable to record a finding of discrimination or to rely
upon the said circumstance as a factor in favour of the
respondent. If the other lecturers mentioned in the said
proceedings were regularly appointed lecturers, the
respondent being only a temporarily-promoted Junior Lecturer
cannot seek parity with them.
9. Be that as it may, the Tribunal seems to be in the
right insofar as the, second circumstance is concerned.
There is no reason why the respondent should not be given
the benefit of the decision of the Government of India which
has been communicated to the Technical Education Department
of the Delhi Administration on September 25, 1987.
10. But then the question arises whether she should be
continued meanwhile in the category of Lab. Attendant or as
a Junior Lecturer. Having regard to the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case, the following directions, in our
opinion, meet the ends of justice :
(i) If the post of Junior Lecturer in the
Secretarial Practice (Hindi) is available
today, whether under the designation of Junior
Lecturer or Lady Lecturer as the case may be,
and if no other person is holding that post,
the respondent may be posted and continued in
that post in terms of th6 Government of
India’s letter dated September 25, 1987;
(ii) in case the respondent cannot be posted
as Junior Lecturer in terms of direction (i)
given above, and if no other appropriate post
is available
87
wherein the respondent can be adjusted a
supernumerary post may be created in the
category of Junior Lecturer within three
months from today and the respondent posted
and continued therein in terms of the
aforesaid letter of Government of India; and
(iii) in either event – whether she is posted
and continued in terms of direction (i) or
direction (ii), she will be entitled only to
the salary of a junior lecturer from the date
of her posting in such post. In either event,
she will not be entitled to arrears of salary
in the category of Junior Lecturer (as
directed by the Tribunal).
11. The civil appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid
directions. No costs.
————-
88