O R D E R

Per Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, J.M.

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :

“Under the above circumstances the applicant therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to quash the order dtd. 25.7.2014 under annexure A-7 and direct the respondents to promote the applicant in different grade as per the rules and s per his entitlement and place him in the grade of Scientist-G as on 1.7.2012 and grant all consequential service and financial benefits.

And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions in the fitness of the case in order to give complete justice to the applicant.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is an Aerospace Engineer and he joined in Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO), Chandipur on 3.8.1992. Thereafter he was promoted to the Scientist- C on 1.7.1997, Scientist –D on 1.7.2003 and Scientist-E on 1.7.2008. It is submitted by the applicant that as per the service rule the promotion from Scientist-B to Scientist-C is to be given 3 years of residency. Similarly from Scientist-C to Scientist-D is to be given 4 years, Scientist-D to Scientist-E is to be given 4 years, Scientist-E to Scientist-F is to be given 4 years and Scientist- F to Scientist-G is to be given 5 years of residency. As such after 20 years of service a Scientist-B ought to have been promoted to Scientist-G. But the applicant has been debarred of his legitimate claim towards promotion. Against such inaction of the respondents, the applicant filed a representation on 29.5.2013 which was forwarded to the higher authority on 7.6.2013. On 5.8.2013 report has been sent to the Chairman, National Commission for Schedule Tribe, by the respondents that there was no irregularity caused to the applicant regarding promotion and on 10.5.2014, National Commission for Schedule Tribe directed the applicant to submit his reply to the letter dated 5.8.2013, clarifying the discrimination and irregularities caused to him. On 6.6.2014 the applicant also filed a representation before the Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre, DRDO with a prayer to reconsider his case for promotion as per law. On 25.7.2014 the representation of the applicant with regard to claim for promotion retrospectively as per rule was rejected. Being aggrieved by such order the applicant has filed the present OA.

3. The respondents have filed their Counter stating that the applicant was recruited as Scientist-B and was considered for promotion to the grade of Scientist-C, D, E and F in accordance with the provision of DRDS Rules, 1979 as and when he was found eligible for consideration. Admittedly, the applicant got his earlier promotions on the recommendations of the Assessment. Board. Likewise he ws considered for promotion to the grade of Scientist-F by an Assessment Board constituted in accordance with the DRDS rules and was not recommended for promotion and consequently could not be promoted. The constitution of Assessment Board for promotion of scientists up to level ‘F’ is defined in Rule 8(2) of DRDS Rules and Schedule IC (Annexure R/1) thereof. The applicant opted for Aerospace Discipline for assessment. He had also worked in the computer discipline as mentioned in his bio-data. The Chairman therefore in exercise of the power conferred upon him by the statutory rules enlisted the services of a computer expert in the Assessment Board with a view to ensure an objective assessment of the caliber of the applicant. As a sequel to this, one departmental expert of aerospace discipline was replaced by an expert from the computer discipline. Consequently the Assessment Board inter lia consisted experts including Chairman, from the aerospace discipline and only one expert from computer discipline. The Assessment Board after due assessment of the applicant found him not fit and consequently he could not be promoted. Being aggrieved, the