Uttarakhand High Court
N. Nanjappa vs Union Of India & Others on 11 February, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 UTR 36
Author: R.C. Khulbe
Bench: Ramesh Ranganathan, R.C. Khulbe
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.217 of 2016
N. Nanjappa ...Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India & others ...Respondents
Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Dated: February 11, 2019
Coram: Hon'ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.
Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.(Oral) The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision/recommendation taken in the meeting of External Screening Committee held on 22.6.2015 in so far as it recommended that the case of the petitioner for promotion be deferred; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Engineer 'C' (Mechanical) and declare the result of the Screening Committee held on 12.2.2016; grant promotion to the petitioner to the aforesaid post from the date as and when he became eligible for promotion; and, accordingly, pay him all the consequential benefits.
2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents in the year 2011-12 inviting applications for the post of Mechanical Engineer 'B'. The petitioner participated in the selection process, and was appointed as Mechanical Engineer 'B' in which post he joined on 16.2.2012. Promotion from the post of Scientist/Engineer 'B' is to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'. The requirement, for being considered for promotion from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', is a minimum residency period, linked to performance, of 3 years. Persons, who completed 3 years' residency period, were required to be assessed at two levels; firstly at the internal level for screening purposes and, thereafter, by an External Screening Committee to be formed by the appointing authority to assess the person whose promotion was due. The benchmark to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C' from the 2 post of Scientist/Engineer 'B' is 'good', and for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'D' and above, the benchmark is 'very good'.
3. On the petitioner having completed 3 years of service in February, 2015, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'. The Director of the Institute, by his order dated 29.5.2015, constituted an Internal Screening Committee to assess the incumbents who had completed 3 years' residency period, and were qualified for promotion. The Internal Screening Committee evaluated and assessed the petitioner and awarded him 56 marks out of 100, which corresponds to a benchmark of 'good'. The External Screening Committee met on 22.6.2015 and, on evaluating the work and performance of petitioner in the last 3 years, also awarded him 'good' and gave him 5 marks out of 10. It, however, observed that it was not happy with his performance in the interaction and felt that petitioner needs to improve his attitude towards work as well as gain deeper understanding of mechanical system design and evaluation. The External Screening Committee therefore, while evaluation the petitioner to be Good (05 out of 10 marks) grade, recommended that, at present, his case be deferred.
4. The petitioner's case was consequently deferred and he was considered for promotion by the Committee on 12.2.2016. The petitioner has been subsequently promoted as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2016. The dispute in the present case is, therefore, limited to the question whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2015 instead of his actual promotion from July, 2016.
5. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit, placing reliance on the criteria for considering promotions under the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS), that, once a candidate secures the rating of 'good', he is automatically entitled to be promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'; the External Screening Committee, having held that the petitioner had secured the ranking of 'good', had erred in recommending that his promotion be deferred for that year; this was beyond the powers of the Screening Committee; as such, the recommendation of the External Screening Committee is 3 without jurisdiction; and this Court should issue a mandamus to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2015.
6. On the other hand Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned Counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, would submit that the rating of 'good' in the Annual Confidential Reports is only a benchmark for being considered for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'; candidates, who secure a rating below 'good', are not even eligible to be considered for promotion; the performance of candidates, who secure a benchmark of 'good', are alone required to be evaluated by two Screening Committees, one internal and the other external; and the recommendations of the Screening Committees form the basis for the Director to take a decision, whether or not to promote the candidates to the higher post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'.
7. The prescribed criteria for promotion under the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) is that the minimum residency period linked to performance, for promotion from one level to another i.e. from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', is 3 years . The petitioner had, admittedly, fulfilled this 3 year requirement when he was considered for promotion in February, 2015. The said criteria also stipulates that there shall be two levels of assessment, the first at the internal level for screening purposes and the next level assessment should have a majority of external members possessing expertise in the field.
8. Clause (iii) of the criteria stipulates that, in order to be considered for promotion from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', the benchmark shall be 'good', and for promotion to Scientist/Engineer 'D' and above, the benchmark shall be 'very good'; and the benchmark will be determined on the basis of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). Clause (iv) stipulates that all scientists/ engineers, covered under MFCS, should fill up an Annual Work Report (AWR) in the prescribed pro-forma along with the ACR; AWR and ACR should clearly reflect the research and development work done by an individual Scientist/Engineer; and while assessing for promotion, by Internal Screening Committee/ External Screening Committee, 4 weightage (not below 50%) will be given to the cases which have substantial contribution to the research and development of new facilities/instruments to augment the institutional capacity.
9. Clause (v) stipulates that all scientists/ engineers, who are eligible according to the provisions of Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) and meet the relevant benchmark, will be screened by Internal Screening Committee (ISC). The ISC will then evaluate the Annual Work Reports (duly filled up to Part B) of the Scientists/Engineers already screened, and report on the specific content of the work done by the respective Scientists/Engineers in Part C of the AWRs. The reports of the Internal Screening Committee in AWRs will have to be made available to the External Screening Committee.
10. Clause (iv) stipulates that the ESC, comprising mostly of external experts, will have the characteristics of an independent peer group for assessment of the scientific content of the work; and shall document specifically, through a one page summary, the specific content of the work done justifying the merit for consideration under MFCS; and the External Screening Committee shall take into consideration the AWRs, with report thereon of the ISC, and conduct the interview for assessment.
11. In the light of the specific criteria prescribed for promotion from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', we are unable to agree with the submissions of Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that, once a Scientist/Engineer 'B' secures a rating of 'good', he is automatically entitled for promotion as Scientist/Engineer 'C'. As noted hereinabove, the requirement of securing a minimum grading of 'good' (5 out of 10 marks) is necessary for a candidate even to be considered for promotion. All those candidates, who secure less than 5 marks out of 10 or do not secure a grade of 'good', are not even entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher post. All those candidates who secure a rating of 'good' (5 out of 10 marks) are required to be assessed by two Committees, one internal and other external. The External Committee is not only required to consider the Annual Confidential Reports, along with the report of the Internal Screening Committee, but also to conduct an interview for assessment. In the 5 present case, the External Screening Committee, while interviewing the petitioner, had recommended that his case be deferred as it felt that he needed to improve his attitude towards work as well as gain deeper understanding of mechanical system, design and evaluation.
12. In the light of the criteria specified in the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS), the mere fact that the petitioner secured the rating of 'good' did not mean that he was automatically entitled to be promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'.
13. The fact, however, remains that the External Screening Committee had merely recommended that the petitioner's case be deferred. The appointing authority i.e. the Director was required to examine the recommendations of the External Screening Committee, and take a decision whether or not to accept such a recommendation. In the present case, the Director of the Institute has, admittedly, not undertaken any such exercise.
14. In such circumstances, we direct the Director of the Institute to examine the reports of both the Internal and External Screening Committees, and take a considered decision on whether or not the recommendations of the External Screening Committee should be accepted, and communicate his decision to the petitioner with utmost expedition and, in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Needless to state that, in case the Director is satisfied, for just and valid reasons, that the recommendations of the External Screening Committee should not be accepted, it is always open to him to consider whether the petitioner should be promoted from July, 2015 instead of his actual promotion from July, 2016.
16. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (All pending applications also stand disposed of). No costs.
(R.C. Khulbe, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.) Balwant