Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner through the present petition prays for quashing the order dated 26.2.2016, Annexure P.4 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (CAT) whereby the original application filed by her for claiming out of turn promotion has been dismissed. Further direction has been sought to the respondents to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner under sports quota from the due date with all consequential benefits.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner initially joined the respondent department at Ludhiana in Ferozepur Division under sports quota in Group D category as Safai worker w.e.f 4.6.2003. The respondent department in order to uplift the spirit of the sports persons, introduced policy regarding recruitment of sports persons in Group C and Group D posts through talent scouting as well as providing incentives in the shape of additional increments and out of turn promotion to sports persons of the Railway Board vide policy dated 21.9.1998. The said policy was revised from time to time vide orders dated 19.6.2000, 20.6.2006 and 30.3.2007 and subsequently, respondent department issued notification RBE No.189 of 2010 dated 31.12.2010 in supersession of earlier notifications wherein sports persons working with the respondent department were entitled for out of turn promotion/incentive increments after specific achievements in the international and national games. The petitioner was appointed with the respondent department under sports quota. She had won various awards/medals in different events at National level. For the recruitment of sports persons against sports quota, the Ministry of Railways had issued instructions dated 19.6.2000 and in the said instructions there was specific provision for promotion from Group D to C employees. As per Clause 4.2.1 (iii) of the instructions dated 19.6.2000, the petitioner had fulfilled the norms for recruitment in group C category and further more as per clause 4.2.2(e) of the instructions, it had been provided that for the purpose of recruitment, only senior national and junior national will be taken into consideration. As per Clause 9.6 of the instructions, the petitioner had fulfilled the norms as provided in clause 9.6.1(a) and 9.6.1(b) as she had participated in the 52nd Northern Railway Athletic meet February 2005 with bronze medal winning performance, 44th Senior National Inter State in July 2004 with gold medal winning performance and represented Indian Railways in open National in Mumbai in September 2004 and secured 4th position. Therefore, she was eligible to be promoted to Group C category as per the clause 9.6.1 of the instructions dated 19.6.2000. In spite of representation dated nil Annexure A.8 given by the petitioner, the General Manager of Railway Administration did not grant benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the CAT by filing an application which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider her case in terms of Gurpiar Singh v. Union of India which was decided by the Tribunal on identical issue. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, the respondent department passed speaking order dated 4.2.2013, Annexure A.1 whereby claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that National Inter State Senior Athletic championship was not recognised even for recruitment and incentive purpose till 30.12.2012 and this aspect had been clarified to all the Zonal Railways/Production unit vide letter dated 7.4.2010,Annexure A.2 and accordingly, the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion was rejected. Again the petitioner filed application before the Tribunal for quashing the order dated 4.2.2013. The respondent department filed detailed reply and defended the order dated 4.2.2013 whereby the case of the petitioner was not maintainable. The petitioner also filed rejoinder to the written statement. Vide order dated 26.2.2016, Annexure P.4, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the instructions dated 19.6.2000, Annexure A.7 were superseded by the instructions dated 31.12.2010, Annexure A.6 and as per Clause 9.2.3 of the latest instructions, claim of the petitioner could not be considered. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;