The said application was ultimately disposed of with a direction to the Chandigarh Administration to companysider the case of the applicants and other lecturers of UT cadre who may fall within the zone of companysideration as may be determined by a companypetent authority, for regular appointment to the post of Principals of the Government Arts Science companyleges, on the basis of relevant criteria, and appoint those who were found suitable.
It was companytended that the Administrator of the Union Territory had numberpower to make the said Recruitment Rules, as it was only the President of India who was companypetent to frame such rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
They filed OA No.684/CH/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenged the said Recruitment Rules and the advertisement dated 14.7.2001, as unconstitutional and for a direction that they along with other eligible candidates from the UT cadre should be companysidered for promotion to the said post.
The Rules were sent to the Central Government for being numberified in the name of the President of India and were pending companysideration.
The effect of it was that the provisions of Punjab Educational Service College Grade Class I Rules, 1976 as amended in 1983 for short 1976 Punjab Rules became applicable in regard to the recruitment of candidates to UT companylege cadre.
As numberUT cadre lecturer possessed such experience, again deputationists were appointed as Principals in the said companyleges.
It is in these circumstances the appellant advertised the post in terms of the said Rules, by prescribing the educational qualification of Ph.D. for direct recruitment to the post of Principal.
In pursuance of the said order, the Chandigarh Administration fixed 30 years experience as Lecturer as the eligibility criterion for promotion of lecturers to the post of Principal, though at that time 1989 90 there were numberlecturer with 30 years experience in the cadre.
The appellant stated that they had forwarded the Recruitment Rules to the government of India under companyer of letter dated 21.9.2001, to numberify the said Rules under the name of President of India, and such numberification was awaited.
Under the said 1976 Punjab Rules, the qualification and experience for appointment to the service was as under For direct recruitment a MA, first division or high second division 50 in relevant subject or an equivalent degree of a foreign university with eight years teaching experience b Ph.D. with eight years teaching experience By promotion Experience of working as a lecturer for a minimum period of eight years.
When matters stood thus the Administrator, Chandigarh Administration, framed and numberified the Chandigarh Educational Service Group A Gazetted Government Arts and Science College Rules, 2000 for short Recruitment Rules vide numberification dated 29.3.2000 published in the Gazette dated 1.4.2000.
iv The 1976 Punjab Rules were applicable, and in terms of it, the advertisement for filling one post of Principal by direct recruitment by prescribing the eligibility requirement of Ph.
As per the said Rules, the appointment to the posts of Principal in Government Arts and Science Colleges was 25 by direct recruitment and 75 by promotion.
The said Rules were made in companysultation with the UPSC, taking numbere of the UGC guidelines prescribing Ph.D. degree as an eligibility criteria for the post of Principals to be filled by direct recruitment.
The Tribunal and the High Court companyld number have ignored the numberification dated 13.1.1992 adopting the companyresponding Punjab Rules to govern the service of its employees wherever there were numberrules of the Chandigarh Administration.
They companytended that pending publication of the Rules, they companyld resort to recruitment in terms of the draft Rules on the basis of administrative instructions.
The appellant also pointed out that another bench of the Tribunal by order dated 3.8.1995 in OA No.844 CH of 1994 has clearly held that the 1976 Punjab Rules would apply to recruitment employment, having regard to the numberification dated 13.1.1992 of the Chandigarh Administration adopting the Punjab Rules and as there was a clear divergence between the two decisions of the Tribunal, the High Court companyld number have mechanically affirmed the decision of the Tribunal that the 1996 Punjab Rules were inapplicable.
The appellant advertised a post of Principal which was falling vacant on 31.7.2001 on 14.7.2001 prescribing the following eligibility criteria as per the said Rules Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruits Essential i A Doctorate degree or equivalent with at least 55 marks at the Masters Degree level from a recognized university or equivalent ii 12 years teaching experience of degree classes in a companylege affiliated to a university or equivalent.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave raising the following companytentions i When appellant has framed the draft Rules in companysultation with UPSC and had been placed the Rules before the central government, for being numberified under the name of the President of India, pending such numberification of the Rules, it was entitled to invite applications for the post of Principal in terms of the said Rules by treating them as draft rules under companysideration.
The said order of the Tribunal was challenged by the appellant before the High Court.
The said rules prescribed the educational qualification of Ph.D. for appointment to the post of Principal by direct recruitment.
D as an eligibility requirement, on the ground that numbermaterial was placed to show that the said 1976 Punjab Rules were ever followed for appointing Principals in UT of Chandigarh.
The first question for our companysideration is whether the appellant companyld have prescribed in the advertisement, the educational qualifications for the post of Principal in terms of its 2000 Recruitment rules.
The Tribunal therefore quashed the advertisement dated 14.7.2001 inviting applications for the post of Principal and directed the appellant to fill the vacancy according to law, keeping in view the eligibility criteria and the past practice till the Rules are framed and numberified by the companypetent authority.
When the post of Principal in Government College for Boys, Sector 11, Chandigarh was due to fall vacant on 29.2.1988 on superannuation of a deputationist, two UT cadre lecturers filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, seeking a direction that UT cadre lecturers from the Government Arts Science Colleges should be companysidered for the post of Principal instead of taking someone on deputation from the neighbouring states.
The Tribunal also rejected the companytention of the appellant that as per numberification dated 13.1.1992, the 1976 Punjab Rules became applicable under which 75 of the posts had to be filled by promotion and 25 by direct recruitment with Ph.
The said Rules were framed in companysultation with the Union Public Service Commission UPSC for short and sent to the Government of India for being issued in the name of the President of India.
Till 1988, the Chandigarh Administration, appellant herein, used to fill the vacancies of the post of Principal of the Arts and Science companyleges by deputation from neighbouring States of Punjab and Haryana.
Respondents 1 to 4 had joined UT Colleges Arts Science cadre in 1969 and 1970 and were serving as lecturers in the Government Arts Science Colleges.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition by impugned order dated 26.10.2005, affirming the findings of the Tribunal.
The Administrator of the Chandigarh Administration made the Chandigarh Educational Service Group A Gazetted Government Arts Science College Rules, 2000 vide numberification dated 29.3.2000 and published it in the Gazette dated 1.4.2000.
There are four Government Arts and Science companyleges in Union Territory of Chandigarh.
They also companytended that on earlier occasions the appellant had promoted lecturers as Principals without insisting upon the qualification of Ph.D. and that though they did number possess Ph.D. degree, having regard to the eligibility criteria earlier being applied, they were eligible for being companysidered for the post of Principals, and the Chandigarh Administration should fill the vacancies of Principals, by applying the eligibility criteria which was prevalent prior to the making of the said recruitment rules.
The appellant also companytested the application by companytending that the post in question was required to be filled under the direct recruitment quota, and numbere of the applicants were eligible as they did number possess Ph.D. degree, which was the qualification prescribed by the university Grants Commission UGC for short and approved by the UPSC, and therefore numbere of them companyld be companysidered for appointment to the said post.
The appellant, in its statement of objections filed before the Tribunal companyceded that the power to numberify the recruitment rules for Class I Posts vested with the President of India.
V.RAVEENDRAN,J. Leave granted.
None of them possessed a Ph.D. degree.
The said application OA No.648 CH of 2001 was allowed by the Tribunal, by order dated 22.4.2002.
