IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.

HON’BLE MR. ASHI SH NAI THANI , J

Writ Petition (S/B) No. 350 of 2025

Union of India & Another ........ Petitioners

Versus

Dr. Arti Garg …..Respondent

Presence

Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel for the Petitioners. Mr. Prateek Kanojia, learned counsel for the Respondent.

Per:Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present writ petition, registered as WP (S/B) No. 350 of 2025, has

been filed by the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, and the Director, Botanical Survey of India, assailing the order dated 24 April 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, while

sitting on circuit at Nainital, in Original Application No. 3475 of 2024.

2. By the said order, the Tribunal quashed the speaking order of the Ministry

dated 09 August 2024. It directed that the case of the Respondent, Dr. Arti Garg, Scientist ‘E’, be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ under the Flexible Complementing Scheme, by ignoring her Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) for the years 2021–22 and 2022– 23, and by conducting a review by the Departmental Promotion

Committee.

3. The Petitioners have come before this Court contending that the Tribunal travelled beyond its jurisdiction in directing exclusion of service records and interfering with the policy-based assessment of suitability for promotion.

4. The Respondent, Dr. Arti Garg, entered the services of the Botanical Survey of India (hereinafter “BSI”) on 04 February 2004 as Scientist ‘B’. She was promoted to Scientist ‘C’ on 11 September 2008, to Scientist ‘D’ on 29 January 2015, and thereafter to Scientist ‘E’ on 04 October 2019. At the time relevant to these proceedings, she had served for over four years in the grade of Scientist ‘E’ and was about 58 years of age.

5. On 04 October 2023, the Petitioners initiated the process for convening a Screening Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of Scientists for in-situ promotion under the FCS as on 01 January 2024. The Respondent applied to be considered under Rule 12(5), claiming eligibility on account of completion of more than four years in grade ‘E’. In the course of this, she sought copies of her APARs for the years 2021–22 and 2022–23. Upon receiving the same, she found that she had been graded below the benchmark required for relaxation. The Respondent, therefore, submitted representations dated 14 December 2023 to the Director, BSI, and 15 January 2024 to the Ministry, requesting reconsideration of her gradings and pointing out that procedural irregularities vitiated the APARs.

6. Since no decision was forthcoming on her representations, the Respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 2635 of 2024. By order dated 12 July 2024, the Tribunal directed the Petitioners to dispose of the Respondent’s representations by a reasoned and speaking order. Further, it directed that the interview for promotion be kept in abeyance until such a decision was taken.

7. Pursuant thereto, the Ministry considered the matter and issued a speaking order dated 09 August 2024, whereby the claim of the Respondent for relaxation under Rule 12(5) was rejected. A subsequent communication dated 30 August 2024 was issued to her, stating that the in-situ promotions for the year 2024 had already been finalized as on 01 January 2024.

8. Aggrieved by the rejection of her claim, the Respondent instituted Original Application No. 3475 of 2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, while sitting on circuit at Nainital. In this application, she assailed the speaking order dated 09 August 2024 as well as her APARs for the years 2021–22 and 2022–23.

9. Her case was that in respect of the APAR for the year 2021–22, the same officer had functioned both as the Reporting and the Reviewing Authority, and the latter had failed to reco