M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 22.09.2006 (P -6) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal ') dismissing O.A. No. 1192 -CH -2003 filed by the applicant -Petitioner, whereby his challenge to the legality of the order dated 17.09.2003 (P -1/A -1) has been rejected to the extent that instead of promoting him as Lecturer in Physics from 20.07.1990, he had been promoted with immediate effect despite the fact that his juniors had been promoted as Lecturers in various subjects from the aforesaid date.
(2.) THE facts which led to the present controversy are that the Petitioner joined as a Science Master with the Respondents in the year 1982. In 1988, he was deputed to work in the Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector -23, Chandigarh, in his own pay scale of Master. It is claimed that he was deputed to work on the post of Lecturer in Basic Electronics. He has also claimed that his juniors have been promoted as Lecturers in various subjects excluding Physics in the year 1990 -92. He has also referred to the rules for group 'C ', which are known as 'the Educational Services (School Cadre), Chandigarh Administration Rules, 1991 ' as notified on 06.02.1991 (for brevity, 'the Rules '), were again amended on 03.07.1992. When the Petitioner was not promoted as Lecturer in Physics or Electronics he preferred O.A. No. 884/CH/99 claiming promotion to the post of Lecturer. It was decided with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the applicant -Petitioner for his promotion to the post of Lecturer or to whichever post he is found eligible under the rules.
(3.) HOWEVER , the orders passed by the Tribunal were not implemented and then he preferred C.P. No. 69/2003. During the pendency of contempt proceedings Respondents produced a copy of the order dated 09.05.2003 in which claim of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Basic Electronics was rejected, he being not eligible and qualified for the said post as per orders of the Administration dated 17.07.1989. This action on the part of the Respondents was, however, challenged by him in OA No. 593/CH/2003.;