Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12942
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ranjit More, Chairman, Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Aabi Binju – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No.832/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.L. Manhas
For the Respondents: R.V.Sinha, Ranjan Tyagi
Actual date of assuming charge, not notional promotion, determines eligibility for promotion under recruitment rules; BoA assessment of fitness upheld absent malice.
Headnote:The applicant challenged proceedings of the Screening Committee dated 19.05.2017 and Board of Assessment (BoA) dated 31.07.2017 & 01.08.2017 under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging bias, arbitrariness, and violation of recruitment rules for promotion from Scientist D to Scientist E in CSMRS. Essential facts include notional promotion to Scientist D w.e.f. 30.10.1998 per prior Tribunal orders, eligibility confirmed by DoPT and MoWR letters in 2014, yet non-consideration until 2017 due to residency and performance issues. The Tribunal found no malice, upheld BoA's assessment deeming applicant unfit based on inadequate understanding of work and vision, and dismissed the OA. Key issues framed: Whether BoA proceedings violated recruitment rules, 2010, including composition, residency (4 years in Scientist D), and consideration of notional service; whether agenda notes misled due to uncorrected bio-data and seniority footnotes. Ratio decidendi: Actual charge assumption date (07.03.2013) governs eligibility, not notional promotion; new rules prohibit retrospective promotion (Para 6(9)); BoA properly constituted per rules with UPSC member, Director, and experts; applicant's personal interaction failed to demonstrate requisite abilities, justifying non-recommendation. The Original Application is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service history and promotion prayers (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. alleged irregularities in screening committee and boa (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents' defense on assessment and rules (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. tribunal upholds eligibility and fitness findings (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. oa dismissed for lack of merit (Para 24 , 25) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :-
(i) To quash and set aside the impugned proceedings and recommendations dated 19.05.2017 of the Screening Committee and dated 31.07.2017 & 01.08.2017 of the BoA (Annexure A1 colly), being absolutely illegal, unconstitutional, biased, arbitrary, mala fide, malicious, discriminatory and unjust.
(ii) To direct the respondents to hold a Review BoA as per procedure prescribed under the Rules/administrative instructions, by considering the name of the applicant and assess fairly his suitability for promotion to the post of Scientist E from the due date of his entitlement within a month to grant him the said promotion.
iii) To pass any other order/direction(s) as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.
OR ALTERANATIVELY
Direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 06.02.2018 of the applicant (Annexure A2) and pass a reasoned and speaking order on it within a month in the interest of justice, fairness and equity as the retirement of the applicant is due on 30.09.2018.”
2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are that vide order dated 12.07.1985 of the then Ministry of Irrigation and Power, the applicant was appointed as Research Officer (Engineering)/Scientist B in the CSMRS. He was further promoted to the post of SRO/Sc C in the CSMRS on 28.06.1990. In pursuance of the Tribunal’s order dated 11.10.2011 in OA No. 1076/2007, a Review Assessment Board met in the UPSC on 15.02.2013 and it recommended his promotion to the grade of Scientist D against the vacancy of the year 1998 and consequently vide order dated 07.03.2013 of the CSMRS, he stands promoted to the grade of Scientist D w.e.f. 30.10.1998 with all consequential benefits, including seniority, eligibility for higher promotion and arrears of pay and allowances.
3. It is submitted that this Tribunal further passed an order on 23.03.2012 in his another OA No. 733/2012 thereby directing the respondents that after considering him for promotion in the grade of Scientist D from the due date, he shall be further considered for next promotion to the post of Joint Director/Sc E, subject to his fulfilling the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Rules. Vide their letters dated 02.07.2014 and 28.08.2014, the DoPT and MoWR respectively took a conscious decision to consider his name for promotion to the post of Scientist E by counting his service in the grade of Scientist D w.e.f. 1998 (30.10.1998). It is a matter of record that in pursuance of the DoPT's OM dated 09.11.1998 and various judicial pronouncements, many colleagues of the applicant in the CSMRS, including the present Director Mr. Hasan Abdullah (Respondent No. 4) have been given benefit of notional promotion for their next higher promotions/grades by the Ministry. Inspite of the above conscious decision of the DoPT and MoWR vide their above referred letters dated 02.07.2014 and 28.08.2014 to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Scientist E by counting his service in the feeder grade of Scientist D w.e.f. 1998, no meeting of the BoA was called to consider his case in the above context until July, 2017. Though the applicant on his appointment to the grade of Scientist D had completed 10 years of regular service in the said grade in 2008 (required for the grant of MACP), yet he has been granted MACP only w.e.f. 01.04.2015. On grant of it, his pay has been fixed in the (Pay Band-4 Rs. 37,400-76,000+ GP Rs. 8700, Lev
