Point of Law: Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

Table of Contents

Preface:- .................................................................................................................. 1

Background:-....................................................................................................................... 2

Submissions on behalf of the petitioners:- .......................................................................... 7

Submissions on behalf of the respondent:- ....................................................................... 10

Analysis and reasons:- ...................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion:- ................................................................................................. 22

Preface:-

1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 13.10.2020, read with the order dated 21.01.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short, the “Tribunal”] in O.A. No.1119/2019 and M.A. No.46/2021.

1.1. Via the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has allowed the original application ['O.A.'] preferred by the respondent. 1.2. The short issue which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners should take into account the past services rendered by the respondent with her previous employer. 1.3. From the point of view of the respondent, this aspect has attained criticality, as she has been denied the benefits envisaged under the Career Advancement Scheme [in short “CAS”]. The denial of benefits under CAS has resulted in the respondent not being granted senior scale.

Background:-

2. Before we proceed further, the following broad facts are required to be noticed :

2.1 The respondent was appointed as Lecturer (Electrical Engineering) [in short “Lecturer (EE)”] in BSF Polytechnic on 31.03.2000, pursuant to an advertisement issued on 8-14.05.1999 [in short “the 1999 advertisement”]. 2.2. At the point in time, when the 1999 advertisement was issued by BSF Polytechnic, the notification dated 20.09.1989 [in short "the 1989 notification"] read with the Guidelines for Career Advancement of Lecturers in Polytechnics dated 10.09.1993,issued by All India Council for Teacher Education (AICTE), was in vogue.

2.3. It is pertinent to note that the qualifications prescribed under the 1989 notification prescribed were as follows:

2.4 As against this, the 1999 advertisement prescribed the following [relevant] qualifications for the post of Lecturer (EE):-

“1. Lecturer (Electrical Engg.): 01 post (Rs 8000-275-13500) DA, HRA and CCA as per BSF Central Education Fund Rules Educational qualifications: Essential B.E (Electrical) in 1st Class from a recognized University Desirable

i) Qualifying in an All India Examination (such as GATE or equivalent)

ii) Competent to teach in both Hindi and English.

Age: Less than 40 years Experience: At least 3 years teaching experience in a recognized Polytechnic or Degree Engineering college in the field of Electrical Engg.”

3. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the respondent claims she was granted senior scale by her erstwhile employer i.e., BSF Education Society with the issuance of the order dated 31.01.2007.

3.1. We may note that this aspect is disputed by the petitioners. The petitioners claim that the respondent continued in the pay scale Rs.8000-13500/- till she resigned from BSF Polytechnic on 27.09.2010.

3.2. According to the petitioners, had the above-mentioned order dated 31.01.2007 been given, effect to, the respond