Pre-published promotion criteria with high interview weightage upheld if known and accepted by candidate without prior objection.

O R D E R:-

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member

The sole applicant is aggrieved by Annexure A-1 order rejecting her representation requesting to re-consider denial of promotion to her as Assistant Nursing Superintendent-C in the selection held on 25.04.2021, under the Modified Flexible Complementing Promotion (MFCP) Scheme of the 2^nd respondent.

2. The applicant joined the 2^nd respondent, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology as a Staff Nurse in the year 1993. The 4^th respondent is the former Director, who has been arrayed in his personal capacity. The applicant was promoted in sequence as Staff Nurse, Staff Nurse 'B', Staff Nurse 'C' and thereafter as Chief Staff Nurse. In the cadre review she was appointed as Senior Nursing Officer-'C' with effect from 01.07.2019. She became eligible for the 4^th MFCP benefit as Assistant Nursing Superintendent-C on completion of 7 years residency period from the date of promotion to the post of Chief Staff Nurse.

3. While so, the 2^nd respondent issued Annexure A-4 notification inviting applications from eligible Academic/Non-Academic Staff whose pay matrix level was 8 and above for the MFCP promotion as Assistant Nursing Superintendent C. Applicant submitted application to the competent authority. She ultimately appeared before the Senior Staff Selection Committee (SSSC) held on 25.04.2021. The then Director-in- Charge of the institute was the Chairman of the Selection Committee (Ex- Officio), who personally attended the interview, while all other four members joined interview online. Pursuant to the recommendation submitted by the SSSC to the Governing Body and with the approval of the Governing Body, Annexure A-6 promotion order was issued. According to the applicant, her name was not included in the promotion list, in spite of her consistent good track record of service as evident from and APAR's and performance in the interview. She submitted RTI application and got the details of the marks, relevant criteria for evaluation of assessment and the unsigned copies of evaluation sheets in relation to the applicant, produced as Annexure A-3. The relevant criteria for evaluation/assessment is:

1) Marks obtained for APAR: Out of 30

2) SSSC Interview Score : Out of 70

3) Total Score : Out of 100

4. It was required that for pay matrix level 11 and above, for MFCP designation, the marks to be obtained was 75% and above. Further the candidate shall obtain minimum qualified marks of 50% in part I and part II. According to the applicant, she got 30 marks each for APAR and for the interview, in maximum of 70, from Members 1, 3, 4 and 5 gave her 35 marks each. The 2^nd Member gave only 30 marks. Hence, she got less than 50% marks in aggregate since one of the interviewers had awarded just below 50%. According to the applicant, 70% mark weightage for interview was very high and prejudicial to the interest of candidates. It was further contended that individual performance of the candidate was to be evaluated on seven specific parameters with aggregate mark at 70. Separate marks were not allotted for each parameter. Only the aggregate was assigned as per the marks obtained under the RTI Act. It was stated that the appointing authority of the applicant was the Governing Body and 4^th respondent was a member of Governing Body. He was also a Member Secretary of the Interview Board. He had chaired the selection of the applicant held on 25.04.2021. As per the DoPT OM dated 10.04.1989, after the selec