CHANDIGARH, July 9: The Central Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim of Kanta Katoch, junior instructor (tailoring) for promotion to the post of senior instructor (tailoring) with effect from 1987.The applicant contended that she joined the service as junior instructor (JI) in 1980 and in 1987 when a post of senior instructor was sanctioned, she was the senior most JI eligible for promotion. She added that the respondents did `not apply their mind' and she was not considered for promotion, adding that her promotion was delayed up to May, 1993. She contended that there are two schemes - CTI and ITI, adding that both these services are treated at par and their posts are interchangeable.The respondents denied her claim on the ground that CTI and ITI were two different schemes and the applicant who was appointed under the ITI scheme was not eligible for promotion under the CTI scheme.After hearing counsel for the parties, the bench comprising administrative member S. C. Vaish and judicial member Jasbir S. Dhaliwal held that CTI and ITI were two different schemes governed by separate sets of rules and although these schemes were merged with effect from May, 1991, however the applicant's claim against some other vacancy from 1987 i.e. before this date, would not be tenable.Petition dismissed A bench comprising judicial member Jasbir S. Dhaliwal turned down the plea of Vijay K. Singh, Works Manager of the Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala for quashing ``adverse'' remarks against him.The case of the applicant was that his work and conduct had always been assessed as ``very Good or outstanding'' since 1981 till one I. D. Amin joined as general manager in 1990. The applicant charged that his annual reports for the years 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 were spoiled for extraneous considerations at his behest. The respondents pleaded that the entries in his CR were based on his performance during the relevant period and as per his own admission, he was served with chargesheets for major punishment and in all such chargesheets he was found guilty. The allegations of malafide levelled against Amin were denied and it was added that after his retirement w.e.f. 31-1-1992, he had no role to play in the RCF.After considering rival contentions, the bench observed that making allegations of malafide was quite easy and appeared to be the norm whenever a government official wished to challenge some administrative action but the courts interfered on these grounds only when there was evidence to support it or there was some solid evidence from which an interference could be drawn of such malafide. Analysing the facts of the case the bench observed that the allegations of malafide against Amin appeared to be improbable as had he been so inimical towards him, the applicant would not have been promoted in May 1991. The applicant had not spared any officer against whom allegations of malafide were not levelled. The petition was dismissed -`` being devoid of merit.''
