Smt.Sarabjeet Malik vs Uoi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 344 Del

$~R-43
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: January 23, 2013

+                            WP(C) 4698/2001

      SMT.SARABJEET MALIK                       ...Petitioner
              Represented by: Mr.Naresh Kumar Daksh, Advocate.
                    versus

      UOI & ORS.                                ..... Respondents

Represented by: Mr.Amrit Pal Singh and Ms.Gurjinder Kaur, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The issue is short. Impugned order is dated March 27, 2001 dismissing OA No.968/2000 filed by the writ petitioner.

3. Since we are agreeing with the view taken by the Tribunal, but noting that the order passed does not succinctly bring out the issue which needed adjudication, we would simply note that under the second respondent there existed a post of Senior Technical Assistant. There also existed posts of Foreman, Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman.

4. Inter-se, Senior Technical Assistant, there were 4 disciplines :

(i) Electrical/Electronic, (ii) Chemical, (iii) Engineering and (iv) Metallurgy.

5. There was stagnation of those who were holding the post of Senior Technical Assistant.

6. The 5th Central Pay Commission, in paragraph 63.264 of its report, accepted restructuring of the post of Senior Technical Assistant to

over come stagnation and recommended to the Government, a recommendation which was accepted, that 41% of the posts of Senior Technical Assistants be placed in the higher pay-scale and retaining the remainder in the lower pay-scale, replacement scales be effected and the post be re-designated as : (i) STA-II ....`6,500-10,500/-; and (ii) STA-I .... `7450-11500/-.

7. Accordingly, of the existing 190 posts of Senior Technical Assistants, 112 were placed in the pay-scale `6,500-10,500/- and designated as STA-II; 78 upgraded posts were placed in the pay-scale `7,450-11,500/- and designated as STA-I.

8. The promotional post was that of a Junior Scientific Officer.

9. The applicable Recruitment Rules stated that the post of Junior Scientific Officer was a selection-cum-seniority post required to be filled up by promotion from amongst : (i) Foreman, (ii) Senior Scientific Assistant,

(iii) Chief Draughtsman, and (iv) Senior Technical Assistant Grade-I. Two notes stand appended to the Recruitment Rules. They read as under:-

"Note-1 : The promotion shall be made discipline wise.

Note-2 : A ratio shall be maintained for filling up the vacancies from the feeder categories, namely, Foreman, Senior Scientific Assistant, Chief Draughtsman and Senior Technical Assistant Grade-I in the respective disciplines. The ratio shall be fixed from time to time as far as possible on the basis of relative strength of the feeder categories in each discipline."

10. The case of the respondent was that since the Recruitment Rule in question for the post of Junior Scientific Officer expressly recorded that promotions shall be made discipline-wise, inter-se the Senior Technical Assistants Grade-I the ratio had to be maintained discipline-wise i.e. the discipline of Electrical/Electronics, Chemical, Engineering and Metallurgy.

11. The argument overlooks the fact that the feeder category to the post of Junior Scientific Officers were four posts : (i) Foreman, (ii) Senior Scientific Assistant, (iii) Chief Draughtsman, and (iv) Senior Technical Assistant Grade-I.

12. The respective discipline-wise promotion to be made is obviously referable to the said four disciplines and not further to the 4 disciplines constituting the cadre of Senior Technical Assistant Grade-I.

13. A meaningful reading of the decision passed by the Tribunal would evidence as above.

14. We accordingly find no merit in the writ petition which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 23, 2013 dk