Ravinder Dudeja DECISION
Rekha Palli, J.
1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in O.A.No.255/2016. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application (OA) filed by the respondent/applicant by holding that the changed criteria for grant of senior scale, as notified on 05.03.2010, could not be made applicable to the respondent as he had joined service much prior i.e., on 18.10.2004 and, would therefore, be governed by the notification dated 30.12.1999.
2. We may at this stage itself note, that as per the notification dated 30.12.1999, six years of service was required for consideration for grant of senior scale, which period was as per notification dated 05.03.2010, enhanced to nine years qua those candidates who are holding neither Masters degree nor Ph.D.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that despite the amended criteria having come into force on 05.03.2010, the respondent would be governed by the earlier criteria prescribed vide notification dated 30.12.1999. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate that promotion criteria can be changed at any point by the employer and no employee has a vested right to claim that he/she should be considered for promotion on the basis of criteria which was applicable when he joined service. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that the amended criteria introduced after the respondent had joined service could not be made applicable him after he had joined service on 18.10.2004. Furthermore, he contends that even though the respondent was ready and willing to join service much earlier i.e., in March/April 2004 itself, his joining was for no fault of his, delayed by the petitioner by which time the new criteria had been introduced. Finally, he submits that even otherwise, the respondent had been discriminated against vis--vis three of his batch mates who were between April 2010 to June 2010, granted benefit of the said senior scale on the basis of the notification dated 30.12.1999 itself. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
5. Having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we may begin by noting the relevant extracts of the impugned order, which read as under:-
"10. The applicant cannot be denied his right, which has accrued to him on the strength of the notification dated 30.12.1999, which existed at the time when he was appointed. The notification dated 05.03.2010 was prospective in operation and it cannot affect the rights, which accrued to the employees in service, by that date.
11. The objection that the applicant did not challenge the Office Order dated 02.05.2011 is not tenable. The reason is that the applicant is seeking a declaratory relief and he cannot be non-suited, simply because an order, which denied him the benefit of senior scale, is not specifically challenged. Similarly, the Office Order dated 06.07.2017 issued during the pendency of the O.A. need not be challenged when the major issue is under consideration. The record discloses that many Lecturers, who were appointed in pursuance of the same advertisement, through which the applicant was also selected and appointed, were extended the benefit of senior scale, on completion of six years of service. The distinction sought to be made vis--vis the applicant, is that the no........