Chandigarh Administration vs K.K. Bhalla and Others

A.K. Sikri, C.J.—The respondents herein are all working as lecturers. They were appointed to these posts by giving relaxation in qualification or otherwise. The question now is as to whether they can be promoted to the post of Head of Department. It is not in doubt that all these respondents are having Diploma from Polytechnics and they also did fresher course from TTTI. This Diploma qualification possessed by the respondents is treated as equivalent to engineering degree. This position was accepted and announced by the Government of Punjab vide letter dated 16.8.1976. Because of this reason, the respondents, at the time of their appointments as lecturers, were treated as having degree qualification and were appointed as such. The moot question is as to what are the qualifications which are prescribed for promotion to the post of Head of Department. Again the admitted position is that the petitioner i.e. U.T. Chandigarh Administration, does not have its own rules for promotion to this post. Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, had issued notification way-back on 13.1.1992 notifying the rules framed by the President of India in exercise of powers conferred by Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, These rules are known as ''Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992''. These rules which are framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, have statutory force. By these rules, it is provided that the conditions of service of persons appointed to Central Civil Services and posts in Groups A, B, C and D under the administrative control of the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh, shall, subject to any other provision made by the President in this behalf, be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons. The clear implication of the aforesaid rules is that in the absence of its own rules framed by the U.T. Chandigarh, the Punjab rules become applicable.

As far as, the State of Punjab as concerned, the Rules, framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, known as ''Punjab, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing) Group-A Service Rules, 2001'' are framed. By virtue of notification of the Central Government in Rules, 1992, referred to above, these rules would become applicable. These Rules, inter alia, provide for appointment and promotion to the post of Head of Department (Engineering). As per these rules, though all posts are to be filled by way of promotion, these rules also provide that in case departmental candidate is not available, then, direct recruitment can be made to the extent of 25% of the total cadre. The rules also provide for qualifications for direct recruitment and inter alia lay down a condition that a person for appointment to the post of Head of Department should possess Masters degree in the branch of engineering with 1st class at the Masters or Bachelors level. However, no such qualification is prescribed for filling up the post of Head of Department, by way of promotion.

The sole reason to deny the promotion to the respondents for the post of Head of Department was that these respondents are not having the requisite qualification of Masters degree in the concerned branch of engineering. The learned Tribunal has brushed aside this contention of the petitioner on the ground that this requisite qualification of Masters degree is meant for direct recruitment and not for promotees that is a clear reflection of the rules as noted by us above as well, and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal on this count is without blemish.

It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that when all the posts i.e. 100% posts are to be filled by promotion as per rules, the qualification even stated under the column meant for direct recruitment will have no meaning and it has to be read as qualification needed for the post of promotion as well. We cannot accept such a plea. The reason for prescribing qualification under the column meant for direct recruitment is that in case the departmental candidate is not available, these very rules authorize the department to fill up 25% posts by way of direct recruitment as well. Because of this reason, it became necessary to provide qualification if the posts are to be filled by this mode, namely, by way of direct recruitment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, then argued that the petitioner had carried out the promotions on the basis of communication dated 31.12.2002 received by it from the Union Public Service Commission which provided that for promotion to the post of Head of Department, 5 years regular service in the Grade failing which lecturers with 15 years regular service, is needed and the candidate should also possess the educational qualification of a Masters degree in Engineering/Technology with 1st class in Masters or Bachelors. However, this communication of Union Public Service Commission would be of no avail in view of the fact that the case is governed by the statutory rules, namely, ''Punjab, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Wing) Group-A Service Rules, 2001'' as made applicable to U.T. Chandigarh. The Tribunal has commented upon this with the observation that while taking the opinion of Union Public Service Commission, the department must have informed about the applicability of Punjab Rules as is clear from the judgment of the Tribunal. We are thus of the opinion that order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. The petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.