Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12354
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Mr. Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, A
K. Sreerama Krishna, P.S. Prasanthi, B. Giri Babu, S.P.V. Prasad, P.S. Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A./846/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ravi Kondaveeti
For the Respondents: Mrs. K. Rajitha, Sr. PC for CG
Discriminatory treatment in promotion placement contravenes equality principles under the Constitution, compelling the Tribunal to mandate rightful placement based on qualifications.
Headnote:(A) Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India - Merit Based Assessment Promotion Scheme (MBAPS) - The applicants contested their non-placement in Group-III despite possessing requisite qualifications, asserting it was discriminatory compared to similarly situated candidates. The Tribunal found the denial of placement unjustified as it violated principles of equality and fair treatment. (Paras 1-16)
(B) Discrimination - The Court noted that the applicants faced unjust treatment relative to others with similar qualifications who were placed in higher groups. The Tribunal directed retrospective placement in Group-III and payment of consequential benefits. (Paras 1-16)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, having initially been placed in Group-II, claimed they were unjustly denied placement in Group-III under the MBAPS despite holding qualified degrees. The respondents had previously placed others with similar qualifications into Group-III.
Findings of Court:
The Court held the applicants were entitled to placement in Group-III based on their qualifications and ruled the actions of the respondents unlawful.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicants were unjustifiably denied placement in Group-III relative to similarly qualified employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal concluded the denial constituted discrimination against the applicants, affirming their right to be placed in Group-III under MBAPS.
Result: The OA is allowed, granting relief to the applicants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. promotion eligibility based on qualifications. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim of discriminatory treatment by applicants. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's scrutiny of promotion criteria adherence. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 4. court's directive against discrimination. (Para 16) |
| 5. final decision to allow applicants' claims. (Para 17) |
ORAL ORDER
(By Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J))
This OA has been filed seeking the following relief:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondents in issuing Proceedings No.29/4/2020-NUT (Pt.III), dated 15.04.2021 and Proceedings No.29/4/2020-NUT (Pt.III), dated 15.06.2021 and orders No.29/26/2005-Nut (Pt.), dated 28.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 issued by the Assistant Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi rejecting the claims of the applicants for placing them in Group-III under Merit Based Assessment Promotion Scheme (MBAPS) as wholly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the applicants are entitled to be placed in Group-III under the above Scheme as was done in the case of similarly situated candidates and pass such other orders or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Facts of the case, as narrated by the applicant, are that the National Institute of Nutrition (for short “NIN”) issued notification dated 12.07.1999 inviting applications for filling up the posts of Laboratory Assistant and the essential qualification prescribed for the same is H.S.C. while the desirable qualification being Graduation. In response to the said notification, the applicants, being Graduates, applied to the said post of Laboratory Assistant in different fields. Pursuant to the selection, applicant Nos. 1 & 4 were appointed to the post of Laboratory Assistant (Field Side) and subsequently promoted as Technical Assistants in the year 2007, followed by promotion as Technical Officers in the year 2017. The 2nd applicant was appointed as Laboratory Assistant (Lab Side), promoted as Technical Assistant in 2007 and subsequently promoted as Technical Officer in 2012. Likewise, the applicants 3 & 5 were appointed as Laboratory Assistants (Computer) and promoted as Technical Assistants in 2008 and further promoted as Technical Officers in 2013. Thus, all the applicants are working as Technical Officers in NIN. While so, the 3rd respondent issued guidelines vide OM dt. 14.09.2016 for implementation of Merit Based Assessment Promotion Scheme (MBAPS), as per which, technical staff were divided into 3 Groups i.e. Group-I; Group-II and Group-III on the basis of the pay scale in which they were appointed or on the basis of their basic qualification prescribed at the time of appointment. Subsequently, the 1st respondent issued clarifications/ modifications to the above Scheme vide OMs dt.06.12.2016 and 08.02.2017. Basing on the same, the NIN initially placed all the applicants in Group II under MBAP Scheme.
3. It is the contention of the applicants that they were actually entitled for placement in Group III. Though the 3rd respondent sent the proposals to the 1st respondent for placement of the applicants in Group-III, the 2nd respondent rejected the same vide proceedings dt.15.04.2021.Subsequently, the 3rd respondent again submitted proposals to the 1st respondent for placing the applicants in Group III considering their qualification of three years Graduation in Science. It was also brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that the candidates with similar qualification who were appointed prior to the applicants were placed above them in Group II and therefore, sought rectification of the same. In response, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dt. 15.06.2021 informed that a decision on the subject has already been taken vide proceedings dt. 15.04.2021 and that the placement of the applicants shall be based on essentia
