Union of India Vs. Vijay Kumari  INSC 347 (9 September 1993)
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Pandian, S.R. (J)
1994 SCC Supl. (1) 84 JT 1993 (5) 307 1993 SCALE (3)697
Judgment of the Court was delivered by B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Leave granted.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,
allowing the petition filed by the respondent in O.A. No. 2551 of 1990. The
Union of India is the appellant.
respondent, Vijay Kumari was appointed as a Lab.
in the Women's Polytechnic, Directorate of Technical Education, Delhi
Administration on October 8, 1973 in the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. She
continued in that post till February 22, 1988
i.e., for a period of about 15 years.
the last four years i.e., from May 16, 1984 to
February 22, 1988 she was teaching the students of
two-year diploma course in Secretarial Practice (Hindi).
out of SLP (C) No. 10526 of 1991 85 On February 23, 1988 she was promoted to
the post of Junior Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs 2000-3200. On September 19, 1988 she was reverted to the post of
Lab. Attendant with effect from August 23, 1988 under an order which reads as follows :
continuation of this Directorate order of even number dated July 24, 1988, and
with prior approval of Secretary, Training and Technical Education, Miss Vijay Kumari,
appointed as Jr. Lecturer, Secretarial Practice (Hindi), on purely ad hoc and
emergent basis stands reverted to her original post of Laboratory Attendant, w.e.f.
August 23, 1988."
Complaining against the said order, the respondent, Miss Vijay Kumari
approached the Tribunal on December 3, 1990.
She characterised the impugned order of reversion as mala fide, discriminatory
and contrary to rules. The Union of India in its counter-affidavit disputed the
various averments made by the respondent. It is stated that according to the
rules in force up to June
18, 1988, she was not
qualified for being appointed as Junior Lecturer.
to those rules, only persons with a second division degree in B.A./B.Com. with
two years' diploma in Secretarial Practice from the recognised university were
eligible. Yet another qualification for eligibility was three years' teaching
experience in the field of English/Hindi Stenography in a recognised
institution. As against these prescribed qualifications, the respondent
possessed a third division degree in B.A., a third division degree in M.A.
Hindi and a diploma in Secretarial Practice.
stated that the respondent had undoubtedly performed the duties attached to the
post of Junior Lecturer for a period of four years and thereafter was promoted
temporarily as Junior Lecturer, but that was because no qualified persons were
available for the said post. It is further stated that along with others the
respondent's candidature was also considered "on the basis of proposed
amended qualifications" but the Staff Selection Committee which met on May 19, 1988 did not find any of the candidates
including the respondent suitable for the said post. It was proposed to call
for fresh applications for filling up the said post, but before that could be
done, the said post itself stood abolished by virtue of the order dated July
13, 1988 issued in implementation of revised staff structure based on Madan
Tribunal relied upon two circumstances in favour of the respondent:
The proceedings of the Delhi Administration, Directorate of Technical Education
dated April 27, 1989 on the subject of "adjustment and drawal of pay of
surplus staff'. Under this proceedings communicated to the Principals of
various Polytechnics, the Delhi Administration directed that "the pay of
the affected officials may be drawn as indicated therein". The said proceedings
refers to 33 persons in various categories. It indicates which person shall
draw pay against which post. A number of lady Junior Lecturers are permitted to
draw pay against the posts of Lady Lecturers specified against their respective
name of the respondent occurs at serial No. 5 as a Junior Lecturer. She is also
permitted to draw the pay against the post of Lady Lecturer [Secretarial
Practice (Hindi)], but this is limited only up to August 22, 1988.
Tribunal says that while not limiting the period for any other person mentioned
in the said proceedings, providing such limitation in the case of respondent
alone amounts to discrimination; and (b) The letter from the Ministry of Human
Resource Development, Department of Education, Government of India dated 86
September 25, 1987 addressed to the Secretary, Technical Education, Delhi
Administration, which stated that :
"The existing staff which will be declared surplus by virtue of the
implementation of Madan Committee recommendations may be absorbed in the
revised structure provided they fulfill the necessary prescribed qualifications
in the required post. However, the existing staff members who do not have the
requisite qualifications for appointment in a particular grade should be given
an opportunity to upgrade/improve their qualifications within a period of 8
years and they be sent for this purpose to the appropriate institutions under
the available schemes."
the light of the said decision of the Government of India, the Tribunal said,
the reversion of the respondent from the post of Junior Lecturer to her
substantive post of Lab. Attendant is not tenable. She ought to be continued in
the post of Junior Lecturer and be given an opportunity to upgrade/improve her
qualifications within a period of eight years and thereafter absorbed in the
this connection, the Tribunal also relied upon the opinion of the Delhi
Administration, Service Department given on December 30, 1988 which reads as follows :
Smt Vijay Kumari continues on the post of Junior Lecturer on ad hoc basis, her
extension on this higher post can be considered by the department. But in case
she has already been reverted to the lower post as stated in X on pre-page, it
may not be advisable to promote her again to this higher post even for a
limited period unless the department feels justified to do so."
far as the first circumstance relied upon by the Tribunal is concerned, the
Tribunal has not taken care to verify whether the other Junior Lecturers
mentioned in the said proceedings are similarly situated as the respondent.
such a verification and a finding, it would not be advisable to record a finding
of discrimination or to rely upon the said circumstance as a factor in favour
of the respondent. If the other lecturers mentioned in the said proceedings
were regularly appointed lecturers, the respondent being only a
temporarily-promoted Junior Lecturer cannot seek parity with them.
that as it may, the Tribunal seems to be in the right insofar as the, second
circumstance is concerned.
is no reason why the respondent should not be given the benefit of the decision
of the Government of India which has been communicated to the Technical
Education Department of the Delhi Administration on September 25, 1987.
But then the question arises whether she should be continued meanwhile in the
category of Lab. Attendant or as a Junior Lecturer. Having regard to the
relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the following directions, in our
opinion, meet the ends of justice :
the post of Junior Lecturer in the Secretarial Practice (Hindi) is available
today, whether under the designation of Junior Lecturer or Lady Lecturer as the
case may be, and if no other person is holding that post, the respondent may be
posted and continued in that post in terms of th6 Government of India's letter
dated September 25, 1987;
in case the respondent cannot be posted as Junior Lecturer in terms of
direction (i) given above, and if no other appropriate post is available 87
wherein the respondent can be adjusted a supernumerary post may be created in
the category of Junior Lecturer within three months from today and the
respondent posted and continued therein in terms of the aforesaid letter of
Government of India; and (iii) in either event - whether she is posted and
continued in terms of direction (i) or direction (ii), she will be entitled
only to the salary of a junior lecturer from the date of her posting in such
post. In either event, she will not be entitled to arrears of salary in the
category of Junior Lecturer (as directed by the Tribunal).
The civil appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.