ORDER :

1. Heard Dr.P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. A.V.S.Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing respondents No. 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (CAT) in O.A. No. 21/1076/2015 (Y. Lakshmana Rao vs. Union of India).

3. By the aforesaid order, the original application filed by the petitioner assailing the decision of the respondents therein (hereinafter referred to as, the respondents) in not promoting the petitioner as Scientist/Engineer SE with effect from 01.07.2008 was rejected by CAT firstly on the ground that there was no infirmity in the decision of the respondents and secondly, the original application was filed belatedly after seven years in 2015.

4. Facts lie within a very narrow compass. Petitioner joined Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) as Technical Assistant-B in 1988. In the course of his service, he was promoted to the rank of Scientist/Engineer SD in the year 2004. He was due to be promoted as Scientist/Engineer SE in the year 2008 but was not considered by the Screening Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) till the year 2014. On 01.07.2014, petitioner was promoted as Scientist/Engineer SE. Petitioner made several representations seeking his promotion with effect from 01.07.2008. As his request was not considered, he had filed the original application before CAT.

4.1. Respondents had filed objection by contending that petitioner was accommodated at Advanced Data Processing Research Institute (ADRIN), Secunderabad in 1996 on request transfer from Bangalore. In the course of his service career, he was given due promotion. He was due for promotion from Scientist/Engineer SD to Scientist/Engineer SE in the year 2008 after completing residency period of four years as Scientist/Engineer SD. At the time of his consideration, his service details were placed before the Screening Committee as to whether case of the petitioner should be recommended for consideration by DPC. As the petitioner could not measure up to the requirement standards, he could not clear Screening Committee till 2011. Though he could clear Screening Committee in 2011 and 2012, he did not fare well in DPC. Hence, he was not promoted. Ultimately, he was screened by the selection committee and on recommendation to DPC he was cleared by the DPC in the year 2014, whereafter he was promoted to the rank of Scientist/Engineer SE with effect from 01.07.2014. Stand taken was that according to the scheme of ISRO, once an employee completes the residency period, he would be considered for promotion based on Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) and other performance parameters. It was only when the petitioner was found fit for promotion that he was selected by DPC and ultimately promoted with effect from 01.07.2014.

4.2. CAT noted that ISRO has an elaborate system of setting up of Screening Committee which filters the candidates based on APAR etc. To usher in objectivity, APARs have been allotted marks as under:

4.3. In addition thereto, the Screening Committee considers other parameters such as biodata of the employee, work report for the relevant period, recommendation of the office, any special contribution etc. Once a candidate is screened in by the Screening Committee, he would be entitled to appear before DPC. However, if it is remarked that “relook after six months”, then the employee has to appear before the next Screening