CAT's Chandigarh Bench stays review of college principal’s promotion

The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal has stayed the order of the Secretary, Technical Education, dated July 23 directing Principal of Chandigarh College of Architecture Dr Sangeeta Bagga to appear before Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) Committee to re-assess her eligibility for promotion as Professor.

The tribunal, comprising Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (Judicial); and Anjali Bhawra, Member (Administrative), while issuing notices directed the respondents Secretary, Technical Education and others not to proceed further in pursuance to the order till the next date of hearing fixed for August 14

In the application filed before the tribunal through advocate Rohit Sethi, she has prayed for the quashing of the order during the pendency of the original application.

In the original application, she has stated that she was promoted as Professor under Career Advancement Scheme from April 22, 2014, and the order was passed by the Administrator, Chandigarh, whereas the order dated July 23 for re-assessment of eligibility to the post of Professor has been issued by the Secretary, Technical Education.

She said she was selected and appointed as lecturer (Architecture) in the college through UPSC in 1999. Vide the order dated March 1, 2016, she was promoted as professor. She was given the additional charge of Principal CCA in 2017 by the orders of the Administrator. She fulfilled the requisite criteria, experience and other conditions to be entitled for CAS promotion as Senior Professor.

Dr Bagga said she has submitted a representation to the competent authorities but the respondents are sitting over her claim for promotion.

There is no power vested in the authority without there being any rules to reopen CAS promotion after a decade. It is legally not permissible, she claimed.

However, the counsel for the respondents contested her claim. The respondents submitted that the applicant had made a representation against the impugned order, and the same was pending for consideration. The counsel said no meeting of the committee would be held till the representation made by the applicant was decided.

After hearing the arguments, the tribunal said it had considered the matter and was of the view that a prima facie case for interim relief was made out in favour of the applicant. Resultantly, the respondents are directed not to proceed further in pursuance to order dated July 23 till the next date fixed for August 14. The respondents may file a reply by the next date.