Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 95
High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT & VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Ramashray Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Another – Respondent
W.P.(C.) No. 5151 of 2011
Decided on: 21-01-2015
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Promotion Dispute
Act Referred
Headnote
FCS - Promotion Dispute - DOPT OM No.36012/23/96-Estt (Res.) Vol.II dated 03.10.2000 - Summary of Acts and Sections: FCS, DOPT OM No.36012/23/96-Estt (Res.) Vol.II, Article 335 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) and its guidelines, the absence of reservation for SC/ST candidates, and the assessment process for promotion under FCS. The court also highlighted the legal provisions related to the application of relaxed standards for SC/ST candidates and the assessment criteria for promotion under FCS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) and sought review for promotion as Scientist Grade-F and Grade-G. The petitioner, a reserved category employee, faced a criminal case which affected his promotions. The petitioner's repeated representations for promotion were denied, and the respondent cited the pending criminal case as a reason for not granting arrears of pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to meet the minimum qualifying percentage of marks for promotion under FCS, and the decisions of the Selection Committee were legally sustainable. The court directed the petitioner to provide a copy of the judgment acquitting him in the criminal case for consideration of arrears of pay. The court rejected the allegations of malafide and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of DOPT OM No.36012/23/96-Estt (Res.) Vol.II, the legality of the Selection Committee's assessments, the consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion, the validity of a specific letter, and the establishment of malafide against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FCS guidelines did not provide for reservation or relaxed standards for SC/ST candidates and that the petitioner's failure to meet the qualifying percentage of marks justified the decisions of the Selection Committee. The court also emphasized the need for the petitioner to provide the judgment acquitting him for consideration of arrears of pay.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
For the Petitioner: In Person.
For the Respondents:R.V. Sinha, R.N. Singh, A.S. Singh, Advocates.
Vipin Sanghi, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.2260/2008 dated 29.10.2010, and the order passed in R.A. No.2/2011 dated 07.01.2011. By the first order, the OA of the petitioner/applicant was dismissed, wherein the petitioner challenged the denial of promotion to him as Scientist Grade-F under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), and sought review by the Selection Committee to consider his case under the FCS for promotion as Scientist Grade-F and further as Scientist Grade-G. By the subsequent order, the review preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. The petitioner joined the Department of Electronics as Scientist Grade-B on 10.09.1984. He was empanelled for promotion from Scientist Grade-B to Scientist Grade-C in 1996, but he was not promoted as a criminal case was pending against him. However, he was later promoted to Scientist Grade-C vide appointment order issued on 01.01.1992 due to revocation of his suspension in 1987. He was granted notional promotion with effect from 23.02.1987.
3. The petitioner was recommended for further promotion as Scientist Grade-D under the FCS with effect from 01.01.1994. The said date of promotion was preponed to 01.01.1992 in terms of the directions of the Tribunal issued in O.A. No.148/2001 on 03.04.2002. As a consequential benefit, the petitioner’s claim for promotion as Scientist Grade-E was considered by the Screening Committee with effect from 01.01.1996. However, the Screening Committee did not recommend him for interview. Later on, he was considered for review promotion with effect from 01.01.1997, but the Screening Committee did not find him fit for interview.
4. In the third review held for promotion on 01.01.1998, the petitioner was recommended and was promoted to the Scientist Grade-E with effect from 01.01.1998 vide notification dated 08.10.2002. The petitioner became eligible for promotion to the Scientist Grade-F with effect from 01.01.2003 after completion of minimum residency period of five years in Scientist Grade-E. However, during the year 2003, no meeting of the Selection Committee was held. A review took place for the eligible officers as on 01.01.2004. The Selection Committee did not recommend the petitioner’s name for promotion. Subsequently, during the review held in the years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, the successive Selection Committees did not recommend the petitioner for promotion to the Scientist Grade-F. The petitioner represented for his promotion under the FCS as Scientist Grade-F on 03.12.2003, and again on 04.05.2005. The petitioner also sought to place reliance on the OM dated 03.10.2000 issued by the DOPT on the subject of reservation and promotion – prescription of lower qualifying marks/lesser standard of evaluation. We may note that the petitioner is a reserved category employee.
5. The respondent sent a reply on 27.06.2005, refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. On the basis that the complaint against the petitioner had been closed, he again represented to the respondent on 19.11.2007. By representation dated 16.06.2008, the petitioner requested for payment of arrears for the period 23.02.1987 to 31.12.1991. A reply was sent by the respondent to this representation on 04.08.2008 which, inter alia, conveyed the observations of the DOPT to the effect that the criminal case was still pending against the petitioner and it would be premature to the decide the question of arrears of pay and allowances for the period of notional promotion keeping in view the directions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010. It was informed that the Department could consider the question of payment of arrears after finalizati
