IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21129 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: Jan. 15,2009 Miss Upinder Parmar ....................................... Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ............................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. .... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Branch, vide which the prayer of the petitioner for a direction to promote her to the post of Lecturer in Interior Design & Decoration in the Government Polytechnic College, Chandigarh, with effect from the date respondent No.5 has been appointed as a Lecturer has been rejected. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Drawing Instructor in Government Polytechnic College for Women, Chandigarh, on adhoc basis first on 15.10.1986 and her services were terminated on 31.12.1987. She was again appointed in similar capacity on 21.1.1988. Thereafter, Government Polytechnic College for Women sought to fill the post of Junior Lecturer in the department of interior decoration. Requisition for the same was sent to the Employment Exchange [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 21129 of 2008 (O&M) on 22.12.1988, interview process was completed on 31.1.1989 in which the petitioner also appeared but could not succeed. Finally Miss Veena Kumar, respondent No.5 herein, was appointed as Junior Lecturer on 12.5.1989. The petitioner herein impugned this selection process for the post of Junior Lecturer on the ground that she should have been appointed to the said post, before CAT vide OA No. 838/CH/89. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said OA vide order dated 8.7.1994. Thus, the position as it existed on 8.7.1994 was that the petitioner continued to work as Drawing Instructor whereas respondent No.5 was working as Junior Lecturer. Finally, the services of the petitioner and respondent No.5 were regularized as Drawing Instructor and Junior Lecturer respectively vide order dated 15.12.1997 w.e.f. 21.1.1988 and 12.5.1989 respectively. Vide order dated 8.2.1998 the post of Junior Lecturer was re-designated as Lecturer and the Drawing Instructor/Junior Lecturer who were in the pay scale of 700-1200 were put in the pay scale of 2000-3500. Respondent No.5 thus stood re-designated as Lecturer, however as regards pay, she was not affected as she was not in the pay scale of 700-1200 but was in the pay scale of 2200-4000. The petitioner herein made various representations to the respondents that she should be promoted as Lecturer from the date respondent No.5 was so promoted. The concerned authorities finally promoted the petitioner as Lecturer w.e.f. 21.1.2000 vide order dated 24.8.2006 by giving her one time relaxation in the qualification subject to the condition that she will not be entitled to any other consequential benefits with regard to arrears as well as promotion. [ 3 ] C.W.P. No. 21129 of 2008 (O&M) Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached CAT by way of an OA No. 349/CH/2007 seeking a direction to the respondents to promote her as Lecturer from the date respondent No.5 was so promoted. The learned Tribunal dismissed the said OA holding that petitioner and respondent No.5 are the outcome of two different streams. Respondent No.5 Miss Veena Kumar was directly recruited as Junior Lecturer and thereafter re-designated as Lecturer whereas petitioner was appointed as Drawing Instructor and promoted as Lecturer by giving one time relaxation in qualification, so petitioner cannot claim parity with respondent No.5. Against this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition, with emphasis on the fact that the petitioner should be treated at par with respondent No.5 as she possesses the same qualification. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, we are of the view that the present petition is misconceived. The petitioner cannot in any way claim parity with respondent No.5, who was directly recruited as Junior Lecturer. The selection process vide which respondent No.5 was appointed was upheld by CAT in OA No. 838/CH/89 and secondly the post of the petitioner as Drawing Instructor has been regularized by the respondents from 21.1.1988 which was never challenged by her particularly on the ground that she should have been regularized as Junior Lecturer. Further it has been alleged in the writ petition itself that as per the recommendations of the Madaan Committee after acquiring 12 years experience – officials who are working in Government Polytechnic for [ 4 ] C.W.P. No. 21129 of 2008 (O&M) Women/Central Polytechnic for Women who neither have sufficient teaching experience nor requisite qualification their case could be referred to UPSC for one time relaxation in educational qualification. It was on account of this clause that the petitioner was promoted as Lecturer w.e.f. 21.1.2000 i.e. after 12 years from the date i.e. 21.1.1988 when she was regularized. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot claim parity with respondent No.5 as she was appointed as an Adhoc Drawing Instructor and subsequently regularized in that capacity whereas respondent No.5 was appointed as a Junior Lecturer by way of direct recruitment. The petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were from different streams and further more the petitioner had been given one time relaxation at the time of her appointment as Lecturer, therefore, she cannot be considered at par with respondent No.5. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) JUDGE 15.1.2009 rupi