Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anasooya R vs Science And Technology on 20 February, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00508/2022
Friday, this the 20th day of February, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Anasooya R, aged 55 years, W/o. Shanavas K,
Assistant Nursing Superintendent, Employee Code : 1432
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences &
Technology, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
Residing at Keerthanam, SRN-26, SR Nagar, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004. - Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr. S. Sadasivan]
1. Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Science
& Technology, Department of Science & Technology,
Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi - 110 016.
2. Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
represented by Director, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
3. The President, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical
Sciences & Technology, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.
4. Dr. Jaya Kumar K, Retired Director-in-Charge,
Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences & Technology,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011. Residing at Castle, TC2/675(3),
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Medical College P.O,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011. - Respondents
[By Advocates : Mr. M.N. Manmadan, SCGSC (R-1)
Mr. V. Sajith Kumar (R-2&3)]
The Original Application having been heard on 22.01.2026, the
Tribunal on 20.02.2026, delivered the following:
A X Sherin2026.02.23
16:25:53+05'30'
2
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 2nd respondent.
2. The applicant joined the 2nd respondent, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology as a Staff Nurse in the year 1993. The 4th 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 2nd respondent issued Annexure A-4 notification A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 3 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
A X Sherin2026.02.23
16:25:53+05'30'
4
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 2nd 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 selection process by the DPC recommendation is submitted to the appointing authority. According to the applicant, in the present case, the 4 th respondent A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 5 was the Chairman of the Staff Selection Committee and a part of appointing authority being a member of the Governing Body. It was also alleged that the 4th respondent had personal bias against the applicant since she had pointed out infirmities in the purchase of certain items in the institute. Hence, the selection was challenged on various grounds. The reliefs sought in the Original Application are as follows:-
"(a) Quash and set aside the impugned order No. P7A.I/SCTIMST/2022 dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure A-1) Letter/Order No. P&A.I/X/ 53/SCTIMST/2020 dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure A-2) and Evaluation Sheets of the applicant dated 25.04.2021 recommended by each member of Sr. Staff Selection Committee of the Institute (Annexure A-3).
(b) Direct the respondent No.2 to ignore the marks awarded by Sr. Staff Selection Committee to the applicant in the earlier selection held on 25.04.2021 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to constitute a fresh Sr. Staff Selection Committee as per law for re- considering the promotion of the applicant w.e.f. 26.10.2021 as "Assistant Nursing Superintendent-C" without the Director not taking part in both the capacities as Appointing Authority and Chairman of the Senior Staff Selection Committee.
(c) Direct the respondents to restructure the marks for interview reasonably and not exceeding 33.3% of the total marks as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4SCC
417.
(d) Direct the respondent No. 2 to issue suitable instructions to Sr. Staff Selection Committee if constituted, to award marks for interview against each of the specified items from (a) to (g) of the evaluation sheet in accordance with the norms laid by the Respondent No.2 and thereby arrive at total marks obtained in the interview.
(e) Direct the respondent No.2 to submit the recommendations of the Sr. Staff Selection Committee to the Governing Body of Institute for the promotion of the applicant from the date of earlier A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 6 promotion order dated 26.10.2021 issued with respect to the earlier selection held on 25.04.2021 retrospectively."
5. Respondents 2 to 3 filed reply statement denying all the allegations in the Original Application. It was submitted that the applicant had attended the interview. The interview board consisted of five members and three observers. The five members included the Director, the Chairman of the SSSC and nominee of Department of Space and Technology, External expert, internal expert and Head of the Bio Technology. The observations consisted of representatives from OBC, SC/ST and minority community. They had certified that the interview was conducted without any bias.
6. The assessment criteria for MFCP was fixed by SSSC as 70% marks for interview and 30% marks for APAR. The total marks was out of 100 and as per the guidelines, candidates have to score separate minimum of 50% in each area of evaluation and aggregate of 70% for getting promotion to pay scale 11. Out of the five examiners, four examiners awarded 50% to the applicant for interview and the 5th examiner awarded only 42.8%. Hence, the aggregate was below the benchmark. Applicant scored 30 marks out of 30 for the APAR for the five years. Since the applicant had not satisfied the A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 7 separate minimum of 50% in interview and since she got less than 70% in the aggregate, she was not recommended for promotion. It was stated that the examiners were proficient and experienced in evaluation of candidates. For SSSC promotion the credentials and documents of all applicants were supplied in advance, evaluation was in consideration of 7 parameters in part II and the individual assessment and recommendation sheet was submitted after the interview. Hence, the contention of the applicant that the interviewers awarded the marks arbitrarily, is against fact.
7. The detailed guidelines of selection/assessment procedure was published in the notice board of the institute and was available in the institute intranet. The institute has been empowered under Section 82 of STSETIMST Act, 1980 to formulate the guidelines for conducting SSSC interviews. The power of the institute to apply to the instructions issued by the Government of India in terms with the policies with the approval of Government has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(c)8891/2009.
8. It was stated that detailed parameters for assessment as per part II A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 8 further provides detailed guidelines/norms and there is no scope for any laxity of arbitrariness from the side of interviewers. Further, there were three observers in the interview board to ensure the impartiality and propriety of the conduct of the interview. The poor performance of the applicant in the interview is evident from the marginal marks she obtained in the interview. Her appeal was considered by the governing body and allegations against the former Director is absolutely false.
9. The personal allegation against the 4 th respondent is absolutely false. He has retired from service, the applicant had no role in any of the purchase of the items and the allegations raised are only hearsay. Accordingly, the respondents sought for rejection of the Original Application.
10. Heard both sides and examined the records.
11. Assailing the selection process, the learned Counsel for the applicant contended that 70 marks allotted to the interview was highly excessive and could lead to arbitrariness and unwarranted litigation. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that this has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. State of Haryana A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 9 [(1987) AIR 454]. It was held that "though there cannot be hard and fast rule regarding the precise weight to be given to the viva-voce test as against the written examination, it must vary from service to service according to the requirement of the service." An allocation of the high percentage of 33% marks for interview in case of ex-service candidate in the case involved was held to be too high.
12. Relying on the above proposition, it was contended that the upper limit of 70 marks allotted for interview was highly excessive and may give rise to arbitrariness. It was also contended that it was provided that the allotment of marks should be based on seven parameters. Individual separate marks were not awarded for each parameter but only the aggregate of marks was allotted by each examiner.
13. There is no dispute that as per the notification, 70 marks was allotted to the interview. The benchmark prescribed for the selection was 70%. The applicant was allotted 35 marks each out of 70 by four evaluators and one gave slight less marks only. Accordingly, the applicant did not achieve the benchmark of minimum 50%, hence, she was not granted the promotion. A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 10
14. The 70 marks allotted for interview may appear to be very high. However, it has been specifically prescribed in the Rules. It was published in advance and was available in public domain. The applicant has no case that she was not aware of this. Fully knowing it, the applicant participated in the interview and after finding that she has not been selected, she has approached this Tribunal, challenging the upper limit. At the time of hearing it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in the next year interview, she appeared before the same interview board and got cleared. It was only thereafter she has approached this Tribunal. It was stated that she was called for interview on 21.04.2022, in the second instance and her performance being satisfactory, she was recommended for promotion and she was promoted to the pay scale of Level 11 with effect from 01.03.2022. Accepting the promotion she has approached this Tribunal only on 15.09.2022 challenging the fixation of 70 marks for interview. She has suppressed the fact that she got selected in the next interview. Thereafter, she has approached this Tribunal challenging the marks for interview, the composition of the committee and attributing bias to the members of the committee, which is uncharitable. She cannot now turn round and challenge the marks and the composition of the committee. A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 11
15. The contention that the split up marks should be given by the individual examiners on seven parameters, has no basis. There is no such Rule and the seven parameters are only intended to guide the examiners. Evidently it is for the each examiner to follow the guidelines and to keep in mind those seven parameters, for a balanced evaluation. It is also pertinent to note that among the five evaluators, all four gave her only 50% marks. One evaluator gave her below 50%. It is true that individual parameters were not separately marked. According to the respondents, the examiners were well experienced in the evaluation of candidates for SSSC promotion and all the credentials and documents of all applicants were supplied in advance to them. Evaluation was on consideration of parameters 'a' to 'g' in para 2 and individual assessment and record sheet was submitted after the interview. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that interviewers awarded the marks arbitrarily, cannot be accepted.
16. The applicant had attributed bias against the 4th respondent, who was arrayed in his individual capacity. Regarding the above, applicant had three separate allegations. The applicant had a contention that R-4 was a member of the governing body, which was the appointing authority. He was also a A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 12 member of the interview committee and to that extent, the selecting body itself was the appointing authority, which cannot be accepted. It was secondly contended that she had raised specific allegations regarding several purchases made by the fourth respondent in the institute and there was every possibility of he being biased against the applicant. Thirdly, it was contended that as per Annexure A-20, the selection committee should consist of six members, whereas, as per Annexure A-13, only 5 members were there in the committee.
17. Answering this, the respondents in their reply statement contended that the interview board consisted of five members and three members. Five members included the Director, the Chairman of SSSC, nominee of the Department of Science and Technology, external expert, internal expert and Head of the Bio-medical Technology Wing. It was further stated that the institute is governed by SCTIMST Act, 1980. Institute has been empowered to formulate guidelines for conducting the SSSC interviews and the power of the institute apply for instructions by Government of India in terms of the policy with the approval of the governing body has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No. 8891/2009 and connected cases. A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 13
18. The contention of the applicant, that the fourth respondent, was a member of the selection committee as well as the appointing authority is not legally sustainable. As per the Act, the fourth respondent is the ex-officio Chairman of SSSC under Secretary of the Governing Body and ex-officio member of the Governing Body. Hence, no malafides can be attributed to him and no illegality can be attributed to him in this regard. She herself had appeared before the same committee next year without any objection and got selected.
19. The applicant had stated that the 4 th respondent was the earlier HOD of CBTS of the institute. It was alleged in the Original Application that she had raised several objections regarding the purchases made in the institute and several lapses that had occurred during the tenure of the 4 th respondent. She had referred to in detail the actions taken for the disposal of biomedical waste and alleging that there were several communications in relation to it. Applicant had referred to Annexure A-13, the communication of the Medical Superintendent dated 24.03.2015. It was further stated that there were several irregularities in the purchase of B-20 solution incurring huge expenses to the institute. It was stated that she had raised these objections A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 14 and the 4th respondent had grudge towards her. It is pertinent to note that though detailed allegations had been made, she has not given the exact period during which the issue was raised. No attempt has been made by the applicant to explain the details of the complaint, if any, made by her or any other document in support of it and whether there was any official enquiry in regard to the alleged purchase. She has also no case that she was given any specific written complaint during this tenure. These allegations are stoutly denied by the respondents. In the nature of vague allegations raised and that is not supported by any material, the contention of the applicant that there was every likelihood of the 4 th respondent being biased cannot be accepted, even on the face of it.
20. The learned Counsel for the applicant advanced a further argument that interview board was invalid since it had only five members. Annexure A-20 is the list of standing committees for selection of senior staff. It refers to a committee of 6 members, as per the composition mentioned in page 4 of Annexure A-20.
21. This contention is absolutely baseless. As contended by the learned A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 15 Counsel for the respondents, committee referred to in Annexure A-20 is constituted under Regulation 21 of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology, 1980 and amendment 2008, which is the departmental committee for direct recruitment and not for the promotion under the scheme. If the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is extended to its logical conclusion, the applicant's selection in the next year selection should also be invalid for the same reason, since that committee also consisted of five members, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents.
22. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no merit in the various contentions set up by the applicant. Various strange prayers are sought in the Original Application including quashing of evaluation sheets of the applicant recommended by each member, a direction to improve the marks awarded by the Staff Section Committee to the applicant in the selection held on 25.04.2021, a direction to constitute a fresh committee and to reconsider the promotion of the applicant with effect from 06.10.2021 and a further direction to such committee to award marks for interview against each of the specified items from (a) to (g) in the evaluation sheet. In the A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 16 light of the contentions arrived at above, we find no merit in the O.A.
23. The original application fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, 20th February, 2026)
BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ax
A X Sherin2026.02.23
16:25:53+05'30'
17
List of Annexures in OA/508/2022
Annexure A1- Letter/Order No.P&A.I/SCTIMST/2022 dated
27.07.2022 (Annexure A1) issued by the respondent No.2 Annexure A2- Letter/Order No. P&A.I/X/53/SCTIMST/2020 dated 24.08.2020 issued by respondent No.2.
Annexure A3 (Colly): Copies of impugned evaluation sheets dated 25.04.2021 recommended by the Sr. Staff Selection Committee. Annexure A4- A true copy of the letter No. P&A.II/SSSC/462/ SCTIMST/2019-20 dated 17.09.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2, inviting application for selection.
Annexure A5- A copy of the interview call letter No. P&A.II/ SCTIMST/462/SSSC 2019-20 dated 21.04.2021 Annexure A6- A copy of the promotion order dated 26.10.2021 in pursuance of the interview held on 25.04.2021.
Annexure A7- A copy of the RTI information dated 11.11.2021. Annexure A8- A copy of the letter dated 11.04.2012 issued by the Director, Department of Science and Technology. Annexure A9- A copy of DoPT O.M dated 19.05.2009 on MACP Annexure A10- A copy of the relevant pages of DOPT OM dated 10.04.1989 on DPC guidelines.
Annexure A11- A copy of the minutes of the Infection Control Team (ICT) meeting held on 02.07.2014.
Annexure A12- A copy of the Medical Superintendent circular dated 24.03.2015 addressed to Head of the Departments of the Institute. A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30' 18 Annexure A13- A copy of the Medical Superintendent letter dated 24.03.2015 addressed to Medical Association Goes Echo-Friendly (IMAGE).
Annexure A14- A copy of the applicant's promotion order No. P&A.II/ 469/SSSC/SCTIMST/2022 dated 12.07.2022 to the post of Assistant Nursing Superintendent-C. Annexure A15- Copy of the said letter dated 16.04.2022 issued by the Chairman of Employees Grievance Committee.
Annexure A16- A copy of the representation dated 31.01.2022. Annexure A17- Letter/Order No. P&A.I/X/58/SCTIMST/2020 dated 25.08.2020 issued by Respondent No.2.
Annexure A18- Letter/Order No. P&A.I/X/28/SCTIMST/2013 dated 04.06.2013 issued by Respondent No.2.
Annexure A19- Department of Science & Technology letter No. AI/16/20/Misc/2020 dated 09.03.2020.
Annexure A 20- Order No. P&A.1/43/SCTIMST/2019 dated 18.07.2019 issued by the Director for Respondent No.1.
Annexure R2(a)- A true copy of the relevant pages of the SCTIMST Regulations.
Annexure R2(b)- A true copy of the Letter No. P&A.1/SCTMST/2022 dated 27.07.2022 issued to the applicant on behalf of the 2 nd respondent.
****** A X Sherin2026.02.23 16:25:53+05'30'