Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition filed by two writ petitioners namely; Miss Sunita Chopra and Mrs. Renu Vaish seeks to challenge the judgement passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.09.2009, by which the Original Application filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and also the order dated 28.10.2009, by which the petition seeking review of the aforesaid judgement was dismissed. Petitioners have also assailed validity of the order dated 19.05.2005, which was challenged by them before the Tribunal with the prayer that the same be declared illegal to the extent of providing benefit of senior scale to the petitioners from the year 1991 and the respondents be directed to modify the same taking into consideration the date of appointment of the petitioners as 07.09.1987 and 01.10.1986 respectively and provide them the benefit of ACP from 07.09.1999 and 01.10.1998 respectively and accordingly fix them in the higher pay scale and also grant arrears thereof.
(2.) Petitioners applied for appointment as Trained Graduate Teacher in the subject of English and Biology respectively. They were interviewed by a Selection Committee. On the recommendation of the said Committee, petitioner No. 1 -Miss Sunita Chopra was appointed vide appointment letter dated 26.08.1987 and petitioner No. 2 -Mrs. Renu Vaish by appointment order dated 30.09.1986. According to petitioners, the respondents by order dated 26.04.1994 (Annexure - -3) issued the order of their substantive appointment immediately on completion of period of two years from the date of their initial appointment. The respondent by their order dated 21.12.1993 on completion of statutory 21 days in service course by the petitioners, allowed them to cross the efficiency bar.
(3.) Shri Rajendra Vaish, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that even otherwise, initial appointment of the petitioners itself was substantive in nature because the same was made after inviting applications from open market and making the petitioners to compete with thousands other candidates and on the basis of recommendation of the Selection Committee. These appointments thus regular in nature for all practical purposes, petitioners ought to be granted benefit of senior scale on completion of twelve years from the date of initial appointment. Admittedly, it is argued that since the petitioner No. 1 -Sunita Chopra made substantive by order dated 26.04.1994 with effect from 7.9.1989 and petitioner No. 2 -Renu Vaish was confirmed with effect from 01.10.1988, they ought to be granted the benefit of senior scale at least from the date of completion of twelve years, counting from the aforesaid dates. The Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioners by wrongly relying on the judgements of Supreme Court in Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. v/s. Jagjiwan Ram & Ors. - : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 769, State of Punjab v/s. Ishar Singh - : (2002) 10 SCC 674, State of Punjab v/s. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal - : 2004 SCC (L&S) 444 and State of Haryana v/s. Haryana Veterinary and AHIS Assn. - : (2000) 8 SCC 4. Those judgements have no application to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel submitted that controversy raised in this matter is squarely covered by the earlier division bench judgement of this Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors. v/s. Gajendra Singh, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5803/2001 dated 27.10.2009, copy of which is placed on record at Annexure -6. In that judgement, the division bench held that period of service even rendered on trial basis, which counted for probation, has to be also taken as part of substantive service conferring the eligibility of experience of five years on the employee concerned. The same analogy should apply for the purpose of grant of senior scale to petitioners.;