Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2020) 11 CAT CK 0052

Manisha Tanu vs Director Of Education & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 11 November 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No. 2283 Of 2020, Original Application No. 1805 Of 2020

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

22 paragraphs · 379 words

L. Narasimha Reddy

MA No. 2283/2020

1.

This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 306 days in filing the OA. The applicant intends to challenge an order dated

28.12.2018, through which the respondents promoted several Assistant Teachers (Primary) to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). She

contends that at that time, her mother was diagnosed with Cancer and that was followed by the present Covid-19 situation.

2.

We heardMr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. T.T. Lepcha, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the

respondents.

3.

We are convinced that the delay is properly explained. Therefore, the MA is allowed and the delay is condoned.

OA No. 1805/2020

4.

The applicant is working as Assistant Teacher (Primary) in the Directorate of Education (GNCTD). The promotion from that post, is to the post of

TGT. An order dated 28.12.2018 was passed by the respondents, promoting as many as 525 Assistant Teachers (Primary) to the post of TGT on ad

hoc basis. That was on the basis of the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee. The applicant contends that though she was

senior enough, her case was not considered whereas several juniors to her were considered. She made a representation on 10.01.2019 ventilating her

grievances, which is said to have not been responded to by the respondents. The promotion order is challenged in the OA in so far as she was denied

promotion to the post of TGT.

5.

We heard Mr. Anuj Aggarwal with Mr. T. T. Lepcha, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the

respondents.

6.

The promotion seems to be ad hoc but on the basis of recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee. The question is as to whether

she was considered at all for promotion and, if so, the circumstances that led to denial of promotion need to be communicated to her. The

representation made by the applicant cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

7.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA by directing the respondents to pass an order on the representation dated 10.01.2019 submitted by the applicant

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.