Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pratima Kumari vs N.C.E.R.T. on 14 February, 2024
1
O.A. No.3511/2019
Item No.26
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 3511/2019
Order reserved on 12.02.2024
Order pronounced on 14.02.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Pratima Kumari, age 49 years
Group A
Designation Associate Professor, NCERT
w/o Prof. Ved Pal Singh
r/o NCERT Quarters Type IV
Flat No.1
Sri Aurbindo Marg, New Delhi - 110 016
...Applicant
(Ms. Madhavi Khare, Advocate)
Versus
1. National Council of Educational Research
& Training
Address Sri Aurbindo Marg
New Delhi - 110 016
Through its Director
2. Union of India
Through
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Address Shastri Bhawan
Rajendra Prasad Marg
Rajpath Area, Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 001
Through its Secretary
...Respondents
(Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate)
2
O.A. No.3511/2019
Item No.26
ORDER
Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A):
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"(i) Issue an appropriate direction or order(s) quashing the proceedings dated 25.05.2019 of the Selection Committee constituted by the Respondent No.1 for considering the Applicant's Application for promotion to the post of Professor (Stage 5);
(ii) Issue an appropriate direction or order(s) quashing the Order/Letter dated 30.05.2019 vide which the Respondent No.1 has rejected the Applicant's Application for promotion to the post of Professor (Stage 5); and
(iii) Issue an appropriate direction or order(s) directing the Respondent No1 to grant promotion to the Applicant to the post of Professor (Stage 5) under the Career Advancement Scheme.
(iv) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the above facts and circumstances.
Interim order Nil."
3O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26
2. The contention of Ms. Madhavi Khare, learned counsel for the applicant is based on the following points:-
(i) That the applicant had applied for the post of Professor (Economics) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for promotion from Stage 04 (Associate Professor) to Stage 05 (Professor);
(ii) That on 16.06.2017, the National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT) adopted the CAS provided under UGC Regulations, 2010 vide circular No. F.18-3/2015/R-I/CAS/Misc. dated 16.06.2017 for promotion / upward movement from one stage to the next and invited applications for promotion from its employees under the said circular;
(iii) That on 26.02.2018, the applicant applied for promotion to the post of Professor with the requisite details strictly as per the format prescribed under the circular dated 16.06.2017 under the CAS. However, 4 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 NCERT delayed the selection process by at least 9 months;
(iv) That a meeting of the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee for promotion of academic staff of NCERT in the subject area of Economics was held on 05.09.2018. The case of the applicant for promotion was considered in the said meeting as per Regulations 6.3.4 and 6.3.6 of UGC Regulations, 2010 and her name was recommended for an interview before the Selection Committee;
(v) The applicant appeared for an interview on 25.05.2019. However, despite having exemplary record and API finalized by the Screening-cum-Evaluation Committee in terms of relevant Regulations, her name was not recommended for promotion;
(vi) The applicant was informed vide an unreasoned letter dated 30.05.2019 that she had not been recommended for promotion by the Selection 5 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 Committee and that her suitability for promotion shall be re-assessed only after a minimum period of one year;
(vii) The applicant, through her letter dated 07.06.2019, requested the President of NCERT to review her application for promotion, which had been mala fidely rejected by the Selection Committee vide an unreasoned and non-speaking order;
(viii) On information being sought under Right to Information Act, 2005, the NCERT responded vide letter dated 14.06.2019, setting out the API scores of the applicant as follows:-
S. No. Category I Category II
1. 2014 - 15 = 220 2014 - 15 = 90
2. 2015 - 16 = 338 2015 - 16 = 135
3. 2016 - 17 = 455 2016 - 17 = 148
In response to the RTI, NCERT answered the first two queries, however, it did not provide any reply to the third query, i.e., information about specialization of experts nominated by the Selection Committee and 6 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 stated that no such information was available with them.
(ix) In response to another RTI application dated 31.05.2019, it was informed by the respondents, vide letter dated 11/15.07.2019, that as per extant practice, there is no provision of giving marks in the interview, and performance of candidates is assessed on the basis of oral interaction. Accordingly, the recommendations are made on reaching consensus by the Committee. 2.1 She further argued that as per the criteria prescribed for selection to the post of Professor, placed at page 85 of the O.A., minimum API required for promotion is 50 in the percentage distribution of weightage, points in the Expert Assessment (total weightage 100, minimum required for promotion is
50). Domain knowledge and academic contributions is 50%, contribution to research is 30% and interview performance is 20%.
7O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 2.2 The respondents were under obligation to award the marks of each eligible candidate in the eight columns, as detailed below:-
Sl. Roll No. Name & Dept. (A) (B)
No. of candidate Academic Research
Background performance as
evidenced by 10
(20%) publications with
particular
reference to two
in the last five
years
(20%)
1 2 3 4
(C) (D) (E) Total
Assessment Assessment of Interview
of work domain performance
done in last knowledge
3 years skills (20%)
(20%) (20%)
5 6 7 8
However, instead of following the prescribed
procedure, the Selection Committee, which held its meeting on 25.05.2019, simply mentioned "Not recommended" against the name of the applicant. Therefore, by virtue of non-adherence to their own Rules and Regulations, the proceedings of the said Selection Committee are illegal.
8O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 2.3. In addition to the aforementioned points, learned counsel for the applicant brought out the following points in the written submissions:
(i) The promotion of the applicant under CAS from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor, i.e., Stage 04 to Stage 05, has been rejected only on the basis of interview performance in complete defiance of the circulars dated 13.09.2012 and 16.06.2017 issued by the NCERT regarding promotion under CAS in terms of clauses 6.01, 6.3.2 and 6.3.7 of UGC Regulations, 2010;
(ii) The Selection Committee is bound to consider the API score of the applicant in domain knowledge and academic and research contributions for the purpose of expert assessment. Expert assessment does not mean interview alone;
(iii) The API score of the applicant is more than three times the minimum required during the assessment period of three years, i.e., 2014-2017. She submitted her 9 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 duly filled-in application proforma to the Head of the Department, who, found her to be eligible for promotion and certified her application and forwarded it for further assessment by the Screening-cum-
Evaluation Committee or the Selection Committee, as the case may be;
(iv) The Selection Committee has not followed any scoring pattern for expert assessment, as required under clause 6.3.7 of UGC Regulations, 2010. Admittedly, NCERT has a scoring proforma, which they have provided to the applicant in response to an RTI; however, the same was not followed while assessing her candidature;
(v) The composition / constitution/ process of the Selection Committee was also not as per Rule 5.1.2 of UGC Regulations, 2010;
10O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 2.4 She also drew our attention to an order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Dr. Narendra Kumar Jain & others v. State of Rajasthan & others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4179/2013) decided on 24.03.2015; the operative portion of which reads thus:-
"In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
(i) The petitioners shall be considered for promotion, if otherwise found eligible, on the post of Professor on the basis of their 50% marks obtained under the Expert Assessment system by taking the aggregate of all the three heads, namely, contribution to research; assessment of domain knowledge and teaching practices; and interview performance;
(ii) The said promotion will be from the date when others candidates were promoted from the post of Associate Professor to the post of Professor under the CAS in pursuance to the applications invited on 14.10.2011."
2.5 Keeping all the above in view, learned counsel for the applicant pleaded for quashing the proceedings of the Selection Committee held on 25.05.2019 as well as impugned order dated 30.05.2019; and to reconsider 11 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 the applicant's case, duly following the prescribed procedure for promotion to the post of Professor (Economics) and in case she is found suitable for promotion, extend the benefit of promotion to the post of Professor with effect from her date of eligibility, i.e., 16.12.2017.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, in addition to the averments made in the counter affidavit, drew our attention to the Minutes of the Selection-cum-Evaluation Committee for promotion of academic staff of Council in the subject area of Economics under CAS dated 24.06.2023, as per which the name of the applicant - Dr. Pratima Kumari, Associate Professor, DESS, NIE has been recommended for interview. He stated that further action in the matter would be taken on the outcome of the instant O.A. 3.1 Responding to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan cited by learned counsel for 12 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 applicant, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the respondents are bound to follow their own Rules, which are contained in circular dated 01.02.2012 placed as Annexure X; operative portion thereof is contained in paragraph (ii) thereof, which reads:
"(ii) Promotion under CAS of academic staff, whose candidature is rejected in their first attempt.
In the case of candidates who are not recommended by the designate Selection Committee for promotion under CAS in their first attempt, the date of eligibility for availing benefit under CAS will be the date on which their candidature is recommended by the Selection Committee for promotion under CAS (the 02nd time). In case there is delay in convening the meeting of the Selection Committee, the date of applicability of CAS will be one year after the date on which the candidature was rejected for the first time. Similarly if the person is rejected a second time and so on, the date of eligibility for again being considered for promotion under CAS will be one year from the date of last rejection and so on."
3.2 He, therefore, pleaded that the applicant may be directed to appear for the interview and in case she is found eligible and suitable for promotion to the post of Professor (Economics), the benefit flowing therefrom 13 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 under the CAS will be extended to her as per the rules and regulations on the subject.
4. Heard Ms. Madhavi Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents at length and also perused the pleadings on record.
5. The applicant applied for promotion to the post of Professor (Economics) vide her application dated 26.02.2018. We have perused the Minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 25.05.2019, the operative portion of which is contained in paragraph (6), which reads as under:-
"6. The following candidate(s) attended the interview. Keeping in view the satisfactory APARs grading and overall performance of the candidate(s), the recommendation(s) of the Committee are as under:-
Stage-03 (Assistant Professor) to Stage-04 (Associate Professor):
14 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 Sl. Name Recommendation No. 1. Dr. Ashita Ravendran, Assistant Recommended Professor, PMD, NIE
Stage-04 (Associate Professor) to Stage-05 (Professor):-
Sl. Name Recommendation
No.
2. Dr. Pratima
Kumari,
Associate Not Recommended
Professor, ESD,
NIE
6. It is worth mentioning that there is no annexure attached to the said proceedings to prove that the criteria for evaluation of marks, as contained in the eight columns, referred to in paragraph (4) above, has been followed. There is just a simple remark that keeping in view the satisfactory APARs grading and overall performance of the candidate, the name of the applicant is not recommended for promotion to the post of Professor.15 O.A. No.3511/2019
Item No.26
7. It is also worth mentioning that in the proforma (page 184 of the O.A.), the minimum marks required under each heading have also not been indicated. We, therefore, feel that the proceedings of the Selection Committee meeting held on 25.05.2019 are in utter violation of rules and regulations of UGC; and the respondents have adjudged the unsuitability of the applicant without basing it on the detailed criteria prescribed by their own office.
8. We have also noted the latest Minutes of the Selection-cum-Evaluation Committee for promotion of academic staff of Council in the subject area of Economics under CAS dated 24.06.2023, wherein candidature of the applicant has been found suitable for being called for interview.
9. We have also perused the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan cited by learned counsel for the applicant.
16O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26
10. We are well aware of the legal position regarding adjudging of suitability by the Selection Committee wherein it is for the legal fora to take it in their hands and substitute the views regarding the suitability of a candidate. We are not foraging into this prohibited arena, but are of the opinion that there has been a glaring mistake on the part of the Selection Committee, which had met on 25.05.2019 and decided the unsuitability of the applicant without following the prescribed procedure of allotting the marks under various headings, as prescribed by their own office, as referred to in paragraph 2.2 above.
11. We accordingly dispose of the instant O.A. with the following directions:
(i) The Minutes of the Selection Committee meeting held on 25.05.2019, qua the applicant and order/letter dated 30.05.2019 are quashed and set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to take the Minutes of the Selection-cum-Evaluation Committee meeting 17 O.A. No.3511/2019 Item No.26 held on 24.06.2023 to a conclusion by inviting the applicant to appear in the interview and allot the marks strictly as per the detailed criteria prescribed, as detailed at page 184 of the O.A.;
(iii) If the applicant is found to be suitable as per the prescribed criteria, she shall be given promotion to the post of Professor (Economics) under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) from the date of her eligibility, i.e., 16.12.2017; and
(iv) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. No costs.
( Anand Mathur ) ( Justice Ranjit More )
Member (A) Chairman
/sunil/