1. Applicant-Minakshi, a candidate aspirant for the post of Assistant District Attorney, has filed this O.A. seeking a direction to the respondents to fill up the posts of A.D.A. strictly in accordance with the rules with a further direction to consider and appoint her against one of the posts after due process of sponsorship by the Employment Exchange and interview etc. As an interim measure, applicant had prayed for being interviewed for the post on 17.12.1998 which request was declined by order of even date on the ground that the question of change of criteria for selection/appointment by the respondents was considered to be a matter yet to be adjudicated upon.
2. The brief facts of the case arc that the Chandigarh Administration sent a requisition to the Employment Exchange, U.T., Chandigarh for filling up three posts of Assistant District Attorney in the scale of Rs. 7000-10980 with the following qualifications:- The prescribed age limit was 21 to 30 years subject to relaxation as per Government instructions.
3. The Chandigarh Administration also advertised the three posts of Assistant District Attorney in the Employment News dated 5.12.1998 (Annexure A-6). The name of the applicant who claims to be B.A.L.L.B.and working with her husband, a practising Advocate since 1992 was not sponsored by the employment Exchange along with other candidates.
Despite this, applicant submitted her application for the post of Assistant District Attorney as per Annexure A-7, dated 10.12.1998.
4. It is stated by the applicant that the Chandigarh Administration, right from its inception, is following Punjab Government Rules and have issued Notification dated 13.1.1992 (Annexure A-3) under Article 309 of the Constitution for such adoption of rules from 1.4.1991. The posts of Assistant District Attorney are governed under Rules known as Punjab Assistant District Attorney Grade II(Class III) Service Rules, 1989 and the method of recruitment and appointment has been provided under Rule 7 thereof (Annexure A-4). Applicant alleges that the qualifications and experience prescribed by the respondents is in violation of the aforesaid statutory Rules of 1989 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as such are violative of her rights guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. She alleges that the respondents have prescribed the experience of two years in violation of 1989 Rules in order to accommodate their favourites and only to debar the applicant. She challenges the criteria laid down by the respondents on the ground that it has been prescribed with vested interests. She claims that she cannot be denied the right of consideration in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution and such action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, liable to be struck down.
5. On issuance of notice, reply on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 has been filed by Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5, Employment Officer, Regional Employment Ex-change, U.T., Chandigarh had filed reply separately.
6. Respondents claim that the posts of Assistant District Attorney are being filled up in accordance with the rules. Applicant, who appeared in the office concerned on 17.12.1998, was found lacking requisite experience at the bar of two years and was, thus, not found fit for consideration / interview. They have further added that earlier also the posts of Assistant District Attorney were advertised with similar qualification and experience requirements and the husband of the applicant had challenged filling up of the posts by filling O.A. No.527-CH of 1997 before this Bench of the C.A.T. objecting to prescription of age limit of 18 to 30 years, without laying any challenge with regard to the experience prescribed., His claim was admitted, but the order was stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLP admitted. Respondents claim the qualifications laid to be as per provisions of Punjab Assistant District Attorneys Grade II (Grass III) Service Rules, 1989 as applicable to U.T., Chandigarh and stress that the experience prescribed is as per requirements of the department/Administration. There is no question of any favouritism, as alleged by the applicant. Applicant having not been found fit, has not been considered for selection/appointment as A.D. A. and such action is legal, valid and not arbitrary & discriminatory in any manner as also not in effective of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The applicant is not entitled to the relief(s) claimed and the O.A.deserves to be dismissed.
7. Applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the pleas and grounds taken in the O.A. It is, inter alia, further pleaded that the stand of the respondents in R.K. Basandhi's case was that the corresponding Punjab Rules as they existed on 1.4.1991 only could be made applicable to the employees of U.T. Chandigarh and any subsequent amendment made would not ipso facto apply. She alleges that the respondent intentionally and wilfully concealed the fact that the rules were subsequently amended in regard to the qualifications in 1991 whereby the requirement of two years' experience and practice at the bar was added (Annexure R-1, Page 52 of the Paper book).
8. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides and have perused the material on record.
9. The short question for determination in this case is regarding the eligibility of the applicant for the post of Assistant District Attorney under the Punjab Assistant District Attorney Grade II (Class III) Service Rules, 1989. It is not disputed that at the relevant time applicant was not possessed of two years' requisite experience of practice at bar. Learned Counsel for the applicant has referred to the rules prior to amendment and argues that in the impugned advertisement the condition of experience of two years is at variance with the recruitment rules.
10. It is a known fact and, in fact, a pleaded case of the applicant herself that through notification dated 13.1.1992 (Annexure A-3), the Punjab Govt. rules, as applicable to the employees of the State of Punjab, were made applicable to the employees of U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. If one goes along with the plea of the applicant on these lines, it is seen that through a notification, published on 24th December, 1991 the said rules were amended to the following effect by incorporating an amendment under Rule 7:- 2(i). "In Sub-rule (1) for the existing Clauses (a), (b) and (c) the following clauses shall be substituted namely: (a) By direct appointment of persons who possess a degree of Bachelor of Laws (Professional Degree) of a recognized University or who are Barister of England or Ireland or are members of Faculty of Advocates of Scotland and are eligible for being enrolled as an Advocated under the Advocates Act, 1961, and who have two years' experience of practice at the Bar.
This definitely is before the notification dated 13.1.1992 was issued which adopted the conditions of service w.e.f. 1.4.1991. The said amendment being before the issuance of the notifications, has to be taken into consideration by the respondents. This is being mentioned as per the pleaded case of the applicant herself. Since only this short question was raised, this Bench is not going into the question of applicability of conditions of service under the Notification (Annexure A-3) as distinguished from the rules of recruitment. Conditions of service normally become effective only a person is recruited into service whereas the recruitment rules prescribe conditions for enabling persons to join service. If the said rules provide for other conditions of service, those would be definitely covered under Annexure A-3. Since the rules of recruitment of 1989, aforesaid, have also been adopted by the U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, before the Notification (Annexure A-3), one cannot ignore the condition of two years' experience at the bar, brought into the said rules by way of an amendment (Annexure R-1).
This amendment has been brought on the statute in exercise of powers vested in the Govt. under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. If the amendment had been subsequent to Annexure A-3, the question could be considered in a different light which this Bench need not advert to in the present case. Further, the requirement of experience cannot be said to be inconsistent with the earlier rules.
11. The above is a view taken on simple reading of the notifications and their natural effect. Learned Counsel for the applicant had drawn our attention of this Tribunal on 25.10.1996. In this judgment the effect of notification dated 13.1.1992 was considered. For the sake of convenience and benefit, we are reproducing the relevant part of the said notification on Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992:- "The conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts in Groups A, B, C, and D under the administrative control of the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall, subject to any other provision made by the President in this behalf, be the same as the conditions of service of persons appointed to corresponding posts in Punjab Civil Services and shall be governed by the same rules and orders as are for the time being applicable to the latter category of persons." (emphasis supplied) Considering the dictionary meaning of the words "for the time being applicable" in the aforesaid notification, the Bench took a view that it, in the facts and circumstances of the case, relating to U.T.Chandigarh, denotes 'the time indefinite' and that whatever state of things was present on 1.4.1991 or on the date of notification in January 1992 or which will arise in future under any amendment. Thus, the words "for the time being"were given a wider meaning. The Bench included the Punjab Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995, as modified, also to be applicable to the employees of U.T. Chandigarh. In the facts and circumstances of this case and considered in the light of this judgment, we are of the opinion that the applicant remains ineligible for the post as subsequent amendments are also taken to be applicable.
12. We are, however, conscious of the fact that a Division Bench of this Tribunal, on which one of us, (Jasbir S. Dhaliwal) was a party, had differed with so wider a meaning given to the words "for the time being". We had made a reference to the Hon'ble Chairman of the C. A.T.for placing the matter before a larger Bench so that the meaning of these words could be finally adjudicated upon. In that order, we had drawn a distinction between "conditions of service" applicable to the employees of U.T., Chandigarh and the "recruitment rules" for joining service in this Administration. That O.A. was later on dismissed as infructuous However, we need not refer the present case to a larger Bench as a decision on that issue will not have any effect on the present case. The matter is also pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as the SLP filed by the Chandigarh Administration stands admitted.
13. While interpreting the words "conditions of Service" it would be argued that these are conditions which are made applicable while a person is in service, whereas Recruitment Rules lay down conditions for joining such service. Opposite interpretation could be that the conditions of service not only are those conditions which would be applicable during the tenure of service, but would include conditions for joining service. In some peculiar facts, sometimes the latter interpretation is also accepted. We are reminded of the conditions made applicable while making allotment of residential accommodation where conditions of allotment include eligibility for such allotment and wherever a person is found not eligible, he does not get allotted the said premises. The second part is that if he violates any of the conditions which are required to be observed by him after allotment, such allotment can be cancelled. In our opinion, in the present case this interpretation would not be attracted. In service jurisprudence, we have specific terms like rules of recruitment which apply to a person before he is considered for appointment to a civil post under the Govt. whereas the conditions of service rule with him throughout his service career. We had taken a view on these lines particularly because the words used in the notification dated 13.1.1992 referred to "conditions of service of persons appointed to the Central Civil Services and posts......".
This, thus, can be interpreted to mean that conditions which would apply to persons who are already appointed. Change in scales of pay from time to time has been accepted to be a condition of service which the Administration in Chandigarh have, as a matter of policy, accepted to apply as and when that change takes place in the State of Punjab. In any case, this part of discussion is mere of academic nature for interpretation of the statute and the notification. In the present case, we find that even if we take wider interpretation given to the rules by a Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Rehash Kumar Basandhi (supra), or we take the narrower view as mentioned by us in our order above by including the amendment of December 1991 to be available on the Statute Book when Notification dated 13.1.1992 was issued, that applicant is found to be ineligible. Going along with this line of interpretation, one can safely say that in the notification of January 1992, ibid the words "rules and orders as for the time being applicable" would definitely cover the period upto the notification dated 13.1.1992 as, atleast on that date, amendment to the rules aforesaid had come into existence.
14. For the reasons, mentioned above, we find the stand of the respondents considering the applicant to be not eligible under the said rules, for the post of Assistant District Attorney, to be not illegal but in consonance with the rules and law. The O.A. is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.