CWP No. 19674 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 10674 of 2010 Date of decision 19.7.2010 Rajinder Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr.Rajiv Narain Raina ,Advocate for the petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') while disposing of the Original Application filed by them. The claim made by the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the respondent- PGI has changed the service rules to their disadvantage by providing 100% direct recruitment for the technical posts like Supervisor (Radiographer). On the grievance made by the petitioners through their Association PGI respondents had constituted a Cadre Review Anomaly Committee in the year 2003. However, the grievance of the petitioners is that on 16.9.2004, two posts of Supervisor (Radiographer) have been advertised for appointment by direct recruitment despite the fact that they had through their association requested the PGI respondents to fill up the post in the ratio of 50 :50 by direct recruitment and by promotion from the lower staff. It has come on record that the matter was referred to CWP No. 19674 of 2010 2 the Ministry of Home Affairs ,Government of India, although the Governing Body of the PGI had agreed in principle to amend the recruitment rules to make a provision for filling up the technical posts which are awaiting decision of the Union of India. The recommendations of the Governing Body have been sent to Union of India on 10.1.2009. A Public Interest Litigation was also filed by the association of Technician which has been disposed of this Court on 26.3.2009 by issuing directions that cadre reconstruction may be undertaken and existing vacancies may be filled up. The Government of India, however, has returned the proposal on 24.7.2009 and had asked for afresh proposal by citing reasoning that recommendations of 6th Pay Commission had already come. The petitioners are aggrieved by the advertisement of 3 posts of Supervisors (Radiographer) by complaining that there is no provision made for appointment by promotion. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application upholding the order dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the PIL initiated by one Ishar Singh by specifically observing that available vacancies shall be filled up as per existing rules which shall not constitute a bar for the Government of India to make any suitable provision considered necessary for providing promotional avenues by incorporating modification in the rules by creation of additional vacancies in the cadre wherever and whenever considered necessary. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the considered view that no interference in order passed by the Tribunal would be warranted. The matter with regard to making of provision for creating promotional avenues is pending final decision of the Government of India and the PGI respondents have been asked by the Division Bench of this Court to proceed CWP No. 19674 of 2010 3 with the filling up of vacancies as per the existing rules. In the wake of the directions issued by the Division Bench, the PGI had already issued advertisement on 16.9.2004 for recruitment by way of direct appointment on the two posts of Supervisor (Radiographer). There is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (A. N. Jindal ) 19.7.2010 Judge okg