O R D E R (ORAL)

(PER HON’BLE SHRI PRASANNA KUMAR PRADHAN, MEMBER (ADMN)

The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following relief:

 To issue an order to the authorities of INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ASTROPHYSICS to promote the applicant, to the post of Senior Section Officer (to grade pay of Rs.5400/-), based on the first selection, as an irregularity occurred from administration side by appointing the Administrative officer, as a member of selection committee during Apr 2014 & May 2015, who is also Reviewing officer of the applicant.

 To quash the tailor made second selection(Annexure A1), which was conducted to accommodate particular persons and the Liberalized third selection (Annexure-A2), violating ‘norms & guidelines for screening and assessment (Annexure-A5) which was made to accommodate other four non-qualified candidates (of 10th std/PUC).

 To issue an order to the authorities of INDIAN INSTITUTE OF ASTROPHYSICS, to supply the copies of the ACRs pertaining to the years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 without passing any fresh ‘reasons/entries’ which may tantamount to tampering of evidence, for down grading the ACRs of the applicant as requested by the applicant(Annexure-A8 & Annexure-A10).

 To promote the applicant based on the first selection April 2014, and extend all the promotional benefits without any delay and return his honor from Apr

2014 onwards, who is going to retire in Nov, 2016.

2. As per the details furnished in the OA and also the reply statement, the facts of the case are as follows:

The applicant joined the respondents as typist in 1984 and was appointed as Section Officer in October, 2008 in PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4600/-. As per the existing procedure for promotion in the respondents’ organisation, the required residency period for next promotion to the post of Senior Section Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer/Assistant Administrative Officer with grade pay of Rs.5400/- is five years. The promotions shall be made pursuant to the recommendation of the Assessment and Appellate Committees constituted by respondent No.1 which consisted of experts both internal and external after adopting the evaluation methodology of the Screening Committee as the criterion for promotion of persons. The applicant fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria and hence was called for interview/assessment in April, 2014. However, he was not considered for promotion. He was again called for interview for the purpose of assessment for the year 2015 and held in May 2015. Seven persons were called for the same assessment out of which five were only PUC/10th std. candidates and hence did not fulfil the minimum required qualification. Of the remaining two, the applicant was not considered for promotion while Ms.Padmavathi who was under-graduate was promoted w.e.f. 1st Jan., 2015. Some of the persons who did not possess the minimum educational qualifications made appeal to the authorities after which the Appellate Committee was constituted and based on its recommendation, four officials were promoted to the Grade Pay of Rs.5400. According to the applicant, in addition to it, six more candidates were also included in the final list.

3. According to the applicant, promotion is denied to him on the basis of grading in his ACR/APAR. He sought ACR/APARs for the six years period i.e from 2009-2010 to 2014-15 under RTI Act but the CPIO in his communication dated 21.8.2015 did not supply copies of the APAR but only informed the gradings according to which it was written as ‘good’ for the year 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and for other years 2012-13 & 2013-14, he was graded as ‘fair’. He submits that the Government of India had made it mandatory vide its GO dated 14.5.2009(Annexure-A4) for furnishing copies of ACR/APARs to the individual employees with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 based on the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. But the same was not furnished to the applicant. The administrative officer in a