- (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 20.12.2013 whereby, an original application filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred as applicant) was allowed and the order of reversion dated 11.1.2012 was set aside. The applicant was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) Sanskrit by way of direct recruitment on 12.2.1998. On 2.4.2009 a circular was issued to fill up posts of Post Graduate Teacher in various subjects including PGT (Hindi) by way of Limited Departmental Examination for the years 2009-10. As per the advertisement, any person serving in the Kendriya Vidyalayas with three years regular service as TGT with 50% marks in the Masters' Degree in the respective subject were eligible to apply for the post of PGT (Hindi). However, such persons with five years experience, the condition of 50% marks in the subject concerned in M.A/M.Sc. was waived. The applicant applied for the post on the strength of his master degree in Sanskrit. He was promoted as PGT (Hindi) on 27.9.2010 after he made the grade in the Limited Departmental Examination. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on the ground that he was not eligible for promotion as he was TGT (Sanskrit) whereas, the post was of PGT (Hindi) and upon his reply after review he stood reverted as TGT (Sanskrit). The Tribunal has set aside the reversion finding that the TGT (Sanskrit) with master degree in Sanskrit has been made eligible for promotion to the post of PGT (Hindi) in terms of the circular issued. Since the applicant was working on the promotional post from the last two years it was held that he is entitled to continue on the post of PGT (Hindi).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the clarification was issued by the petitioner on 10.8.2011 whereby, TGT (Hindi) and TGT (Sanskrit) were made eligible for the promotion of post of PGT (Hindi) but such condition is applicable in respect of candidates eligible in the years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. But since the applicant was promoted prior to relevant years, therefore, he is not eligible for promotion.
(3.) We find that the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is wholly untenable. If petitioners themselves have decided that a TGT (Sanskrit) candidate is eligible for the post of PGT (Hindi), it does not seem logical to have a cut off date not to treat TGT (Sanskrit) for promotion for a previous year. The decision cannot be restricted to particular years. It may be noticed that the applicant was in fact promoted on 27.9.2010 i.e. within the year to which the circular relates as well. In view thereof, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal, which may warrant any interference by this Court. Dismissed.;