Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
A K Sinha vs M/O Environment And Forests on 29 July, 2025
1 (OA No.526/2013)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No.526/2013
Pronounced on : 29.07.2025
(Reserved on : 15.04.2025)
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
A.K. Sinha S/o Shri Akhilesh Kumar Sinha, aged about 43 years,
presently working as Scientist 'D' in Arid Forest Research Institute
(AFRI) and is being posted at Jodhpur under the Institute of ICFRE and
is resident of 1/T-V, AFRI Campus, 729 Plot, Basni, Jodhpur.
.......Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Malik.
Versus
1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Government of India, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO
Complex, New Delhi-110001.
2. Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, through its
Chairman, Board of Governance, Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO
Complex, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director General, Indian Council of Forestry Research and
Education, PO New Forest, Dehradun, 248006 (Uttaranchal).
4. The Director Arid Forest Research Institute (AFRI) Krishi Upaj
Mandi, New Pali Road, Jodhpur.
5. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, North Block New Delhi.
........Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.S. Yadav,
Mr. Mukesh Katariya proxy for Mr. Rajendra Katariay
2 (OA No.526/2013)
ORDER
Per Hon'ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)
1. Being aggrieved by impugned communication dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure-A/1) whereby the marks of ACR/APAR of the applicant for the year 2007-2008 have been reduced from 66 to 26.5, as also communication dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure-A/2) whereby promotion of the applicant to the post of Scientist 'E' has been deferred , the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a prayer to quash and set aside the above orders, as also prayed to direct the respondents to grant him promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' w.e.f. 01.01.2010 with all consequential benefits. He further prayed to declare the M.Sc. (Computer Science) as an appropriate qualification for being considered and granted him promotion to the post in question.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
2.1 The Applicant is holding the qualification of B.Sc. (Hons) in Computer Science and Post Graduate in Computer Science. He was initially appointed as Scientist 'SD' on the recommendation of the Selection Board of Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE), Dehradun vide order dated 14.05.1997 (Annexure-A/4). The 3 (OA No.526/2013) post of Scientist 'SD' was re-designated as Scientist 'C'. The applicant was conferred promotion as Scientist 'D' w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide order dated 30.06.2006 (Annexure-A/5).
2.2 As per the criteria required under the Rules of 2001 for being considered for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' was performance appraisal i.e. on the basis of four years of ACR's confidential report of each and every incumbent. It is averred that after completion of minimum residency period of 4 years for the assessment to the post of Scientist 'D', the applicant was required to be considered for assessment for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' w.e.f. 01.01.2010. However, the applicant was deferred from promotion vide impugned order dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure-A/2).
2.3 Vide Annexure-A/6 the criteria for Performance Appraisal and promotion to the post of Scientist 'E' was changed from performance appraisal on the basis of ACR to Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR), which was based on the marks obtained by each and every incumbent in forest research activities. The assessment shall be based as per para 19 of the Guidelines according to which the promotion from the post of Scientist 'D' to the post of Scientist 'E' has been laid down by which the minimum percentage for eligibility of consideration for 4 (OA No.526/2013) promotion after 4 years is 85%, after 5 years 80%, after 6 years 75%, after 7 years 70% and after completion of 8 years 60%. The maximum score for the Research Component has been laid down as 20 for the Extension and Education Component as 30, and the maximum score for the Institutional Research Management Component has been laid down as 50 to which the applicant belongs. Therefore, an incumbent has to secure at least 85% in totality in the aforesaid three components for being considered for promotion after four years of service on the post of Scientist 'D'.
2.4 The applicant in his OA averred that the respondents have committed blunder by not granting him promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2010 and even in the year 2013 when his case was placed before the Screening Committee in the meeting held on 3rd and 4th January, 2013 for reviewing/assessment under one time relaxation category. The case of the applicant was deferred due to the reason that in his APAR for the year 2007-2008, the respondents modified the marks given to the applicant. The marks which were given out of 20 marks in Research Component were treated to be given out of 100. Similarly, he was awarded 13 marks out of 30 in Extension Education but they were treated the marks to be granted from 100.Similarly, he was granted 40 marks out of 50 marks which was again treated 4 marks out of 10. 5 (OA No.526/2013) 2.5 The applicant made representation on 24.05.2013 (Annexure- A/14) for treating marks awarded to him to be out of 20 marks for Research Component in IRM category, out of 30 marks for Extension Education and out of 50 marks for the Institutional Research Management. Therefore, calculation has to be made accordingly and since 66 marks were awarded out of 100 marks, the same cannot be reduced by the respondents.
2.6 The respondents again issued an order dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure A/1) rectifying their earlier order dated 13.05.2013 (Annexure-A/13) and the marks were modified from 15.7 out of 100 to 26.5 out of 100. The respondents cannot be permitted to reduce the marks which were granted to him out of 100 by the Reviewing Officer and therefore the same could not have further been reduced to 26.5 marks without there being any criteria for such reduction. In this regard, the applicant relied upon the judgment of this tribunal in the matter of Dr. Ranjana Arya vs. Union of India & Ors, (OA No.153/2010) decided on 20.07.2012.
2.7 The applicant though being eligible in all respects including the fact that he is holding the qualification to be considered for promotion to the higher post, has not been granted the same for the reason which the 6 (OA No.526/2013) applicant came to know that the Department of Personnel and Training Recruitment Division had issued guidelines and had answered certain questions under Frequently Asked Questions saying that in the Flexible Complement Scheme, an incumbent is to have Master's Degree in Natural/Agricultural Sciences and Bachelor's Degree in Engineering/Technology/Medicine. To the answer of one more question as to whether an incumbent is holding the qualification of MCA, M.Sc. (IT), M.Sc. (Statistics), M.Sc. (Mathematics), M.A. (Operational Research) and M.Sc. (Total Quality Management) are covered under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS), the answer has been given by DoPT as 'no'. Under the FAQ also, there is no such mention that an incumbent holding the qualification of Post Graduation in Computer Science, would be ineligible for consideration to higher post of Scientist 'E' from Scientist 'D'. Despite this, the applicant has not been considered and granted promotion to the post of Scientist 'E'. The order of the Director General, which was passed as one time relaxation, has also been withdrawn on 05.09.2013 (Annexure-A/21). It is averred that despite having more than 80% marks and despite the fact that he is having outstanding performance in the year 2010-2011 and 2011-12, the applicant has not been considered and granted promotion w.e.f 01.01.2011.
7 (OA No.526/2013)2.8 The applicant made representation to the respondents on 25.10.2013 stating that he was entitled to be considered and granted promotion w.e.f. 01.01.2010 itself when the APAR method was accepted, but the same was not granted to him. He became entitled and eligible to be granted promotion in the year 2011-12 and again in the year 2012-13, but the same has also not been granted for the reason best known to the respondents. Hence, the applicant has filed the instant OA.
3. In reply, the respondents averred that the applicant was promoted to the post of Scientist D w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and after that, he became eligible for the review/assessment promotion for the next higher grade on completion of 04 years residency period as required under Rules. The meeting of the Screening Committee for review/assessment was held on 26.04.2010. The Screening Committee deferred the case of the applicant due to non-completion of his APARs for the period of 2007-2008 and 2008-2009. In the meantime, Modified Flexible Complement Scheme (MFCS) replaced the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) for Scientist of Central Government which have also been adopted by the ICFRE by framing Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme Rules, 2011, applicable in Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education (ICFRE) w.e.f. 01.01.2011 and same was circulated vide ICFRE's notification dated 24.08.2011. According to the Rule 5.8.3 of the said 8 (OA No.526/2013) Rules (Scientists and Engineers) persons who possess academic qualification of at least Master Degree in Natural/ Agriculture Science or possess Bachelor's Degree in Engineering/Technology/ Medicine and hold Scientific post. It is averred in the reply that as per the FAQ of DoPT vide letter dated 23.09.2011, the Scientists possessing the qualification of MCA, M.Sc. (IT), M.Sc. (Stat.), M.Sc. (Mathematics), MA (operational Research) and M.Sc. (Total Quality Management) are not covered under the FCS. As the applicant is having the qualification of M.Sc. (Computer Science), hence is not covered under the FCS of ICFRE as per Modified FCS Rules.
3.1 It is also averred in the reply that the representation dated 25.01.2012 and 16.05.2012 of the applicant for consideration of Scientists possessing the qualification like Mathematics/Computer Science/Computer Application/Statistics etc. for consideration under modified FCS Scheme for Review/Assessment promotion was received by the respondents and a clarification was sought from the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi, wherein the name of the applicant was included in the proposal. The above Ministry informed the ICFRE that the instructions of the DoPT on the MFCS are unambiguous and need no further clarification vide letter dated 12.09.2012 (Annexure-R/1). As per these instructions Scientist with the 9 (OA No.526/2013) above-mentioned qualifications is not covered under the Modified FCS. However, after receipt of above clarification from MoEF, the Director General of ICFRE decided to grant one time relaxation to the Scientists holding the above qualification for in-situ promotion subject to the revision based on the outcome of Ministry of Environment & Forestry decision in this regard vide order of ICFRE dated 07.12.2012. Under this one-time relaxation Dr. Harish Kumar, Scientist 'E' was promoted to the level of Scientist 'F' w.e.f. 24.01.2013. However, the Ministry directed the Director General of ICFRE that he is not a competent authority to grant one time relaxation to the Scientist to grant in-situ promotion. Thereafter, in compliance with the direction of the Ministry, the order granting in-situ promotion to Dr. Harish Kumar from Scientist 'E' to Scientist 'F' was withdrawn vide order dated 05.09.2013 (Annexure-RA/3). As per the instructions, Scientists with the abovementioned qualifications are not covered under the Modified FCS for review/assessment promotion to the next higher grade. The applicant is working as Scientist D and he is possessing the qualification of B.Sc. (Hons.) in Computer Science and Post Graduate in the Computer Science, so he is not covered for review/Assessment promotion for Scientist D level to Scientist E level as per Rules.
10 (OA No.526/2013)3.2 It is also submitted in the reply that in the APARs form introduced from 2007-2008, the maximum score for the Research Component has been laid down as 20 maximum score, for the Extension and Education Component has been laid down as 30 and maximum score for the Institutional Research Management Component has been laid down as
50. The applicant belongs to the Institutional Research Management Component. After receipt of applicant's ACR for the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, he was again considered for review assessment in the meeting held on 05.05.2010, but the applicant could not secure the minimum prescribed percentage of marks in his ACR/APARs. 3.3 It is further averred in the reply that upto 2006-2007, ACRs system was in force and from the year 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the APAR was introduced. In APAR of the applicant for the period of 2007-2008, the Reporting Officer has awarded 13 marks out of 100 marks in Research Component, 13 marks out of 100 marks in Education and 40 marks out of 100 marks in Research Management Component. Thus, he secured 66 marks out of 300 marks when the said marks converted into percentage, the applicant got 26.5 marks out of 100. The respondents prayed in reply to dismiss the OA.
11 (OA No.526/2013)
4. In rejoinder, the applicant while reiterating the averments made in the OA submitted that the Reporting Officer granted him 66 marks i.e. 13 marks out of 20 in Research Component, 13 out of 30 in Extension and Education and 40 marks out of 60 in Institutional and Research Management Component, which make total as 66 marks out of 100 marks. These 66 marks have been reduced to 26.5 marks vide impugned communication dated 05.07.2013. Reducing the marks by converting it into percentage basis is incorrect and baseless.
5. The respondents in additional affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the reply, submitted that the internal Screening Committee had considered the case of the applicant as on 01.01.2013 but due to inconsistency in his marks for the year 2007-2008, which the earlier Screening Committee had done in giving 15.7 marks, the Committee did not consider his case.
6. The applicant has also filed additional affidavit and submitted that the applicant's case for promotion has not been considered since 2011 on the ground that the Post Graduation in Computer Science is not a valid degree for being considered for his promotion as Scientist E. It is further averred that case of the similarly situated person i.e. Smt. Madhumita Biswas has been considered and granted promotion to the 12 (OA No.526/2013) higher post, but the case of the applicant was discriminated by the respondents.
7. Heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the material available on record.
8. It is the case of the applicant that the action of the respondents in reducing the marks of his APAR for the year 2007-08 from 66 to 26.5 is illegal. The Reporting Officer had awarded 13 marks out of 20 marks in Research Component, 13 marks out of 30 marks in Education and 40 marks out of 50 marks in Research Management Component. Thus, he secured 66 marks out of 100 marks, whereas, the respondents considered the marks obtained by him out of 300 marks and reduced them to 26.5 based on the decision of the Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Shri R. K. Kalita Vs ICFRE in OA 529 of 2009 decided on 17.02.2010. As a result, he was not considered for promotion under FCS scheme as detailed vide notification No. 31-25/99-ICFRE, dated July 27, 2001, wherein, minimum percentage of the APARs score with number of years in the same grade after 4 years should be 85% and after 5 years 80%, to be considered for promotion. Since the applicant's marks in the APAR for 2007-08 were reduced without any specific reason, he was deprived of his timely promotion. Moreover, the applicant also claims 13 (OA No.526/2013) that his case is totally covered by the order passed by this bench of the Tribunal passed in the case of Dr. Ranjana Arya (supra).
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after receipt of applicant's ACR for the period 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, his case was considered for review/assessment as on 01.01.2010 in the meeting held on 05.05.2010, but as the applicant could not secure minimum prescribed percentage of marks (85%) in his ACRs/APARs, the Screening Committee has not recommended his case for promotion. The reporting Officer in APAR of the applicant for year 2007-2008 has awarded 13 marks out of 100 marks in research component, 13 marks out of 100 marks in Education and 40 marks out of 100 marks in Research Management Component securing total 66 marks out of 300 marks.When the said marks were converted into percentage limit to 60, 30 and 10 respectively, the applicant got 26.5 marks out of 100. 9.1 He further contended that as per the clarification sought from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi the scientists having the qualification M.Sc. (Computer Science) are not eligible for in-situ promotion under modified scheme FCS. As per instructions, the qualification of the applicant is not covered under the modified FCS for review/assessment promotion to next higher grade. 14 (OA No.526/2013) However, the case of the applicant was considered for review/assessment as on 01.01.2013 under one time relaxation category by the DG, ICFRE, but the recommendations of the Committee were not accepted by the Ministry of Environment and Forest.
10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, it emerges that in the APAR of the applicant for the year 2007-2008, the Reporting Officer granted the applicant 66 marks i.e. 13 marks in Research Component, 13 marks in Education and Extension and 40 marks in Institutional Research Management Component. It is the case of the applicant that these marks have been granted out of 20, 30 and 50 marks respectively, which comes to 66 marks out of 100 marks, whereas as per the case of the respondents that these marks have been awarded out of 100 marks in each three components and the total comes to 66 marks out of 300 marks. 10.1 For adjudicating this controversy, we have perused the APARs of the applicant for the year-2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 Annexures-A/9 to A/11 respectively.
The Table 4 of APAR of the applicant for the year 2007-2008, the Reporting Officers awarded the following marks:-
"Table -4 15 (OA No.526/2013) Overall Score of professional index Sl. No. Component Marks Obtained out of 100 1 Research 13 2. Research and Extension 13 3 Research Management 40 Total 66 Detailed Guidelines for Distribution of Marks for a category of Scientist (CRP and IRM) in different Components Category of Research Education and Institutional Total Scientist Component Extension Research (out Component Management of Component 100) a b C c Max Score Max Score Max Score Core 60 30 10 Research Programme CRP) Institutional 20 30 50 Research Managemen t (IRM) Further, in the APAR of 2008-2009 (Annexure-A/10), the Reporting Officer has awarded the following marks in Table-4, which are as under:-
"Table-4 Overall score of professional index Detailed Guidelines for Distribution of Marks for a category of Scientist (CRP and IRM) in different Components Category of Research Component Education and Institutional Research Total (out Scientist Extension Management of 100) Component Component a b c c Max Score Max Score Max Score Core 60 30 10 Research Programme CRP) Institutional 20 20 30 30 50 50 100 Research Management (IRM) 16 (OA No.526/2013) And for the APAR of the period of 03.08.2009 to 31.03.2010 (Annexure-A/11), the Reporting Officer has awarded the following marks in Table-4, which reads as under:-
"Table-4 Overall score of professional index Detailed Guidelines for Distribution of Marks for a category of Scientist (CRP and IRM) in different Components Category of Research Component Education and Institutional Research Total (out Scientist Extension Management of 100) Component Component a b c c Max Score Max Score Max Score Core 60 30 10 Research Programme CRP) Institutional 20 20 30 8 50 50 78 Research Management (IRM) 10.2 From perusal of all the above three APARs of the applicant, it clearly reveals that there are two tables in the APAR for the year 2007-
2008 whereas for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 there is only one table. The Reporting Officer had not filled up the marks in the 2nd table 4 i.e. "Detailed Guidelines for Distribution of Marks for a category of Scientist (CRP and IRM) in different Components" whereas in the APARs for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the Reporting Officer has awarded marks to the applicant in the said table.
17 (OA No.526/2013)
It also clearly reveals that the Reporting Officer in all these three APARs awarded his marks in table-1 (Research Component), table-2 (Extension and Education) and table-3 (Institutional Research Management Component) and thereafter finally awarded his marks in table-4 (overall score of professional index). It is seen that in the APAR of the applicant for the year period from 03.08.2009 to 31.03.2010, the applicant has been awarded 50 marks in table-1, 51 marks in table 2 and 122 marks in table- 3 and as the applicant scored more than 20 marks in table-1, and 30 marks in table-2 and 50 marks in table-3, he was awarded maximum marks i.e. 20, 30 and 50 i.e. 100 out of 100. Similarly, from perusal of the APAR of the applicant for the year 2008- 2009, it clearly reveals that the applicant got more than 20 marks in table-1 and more than 30 marks table-2 and more than 50 marks in table 3, and therefore, the applicant got maximum marks in the table-4 i.e. 20 out of 20 in table-1, 30 out of 30 in table-2 and 50 out of 50 in table-3 and total comes to 100 out of 100.
10.3 Further, from perusal of the Annexure-A/9, APAR of the applicant for the period of 2007-2008, it clearly reveals that the applicant got 13 marks in table-1, 13 marks in table-2 and 40 marks in table 3 i.e. 66 marks in three components which shows these marks were out of 20, 30 and 50 respectively and not out of 100 for each component. 18 (OA No.526/2013) If the marks were given out of 100 in each category they were required to be recalculated treating the maximum marks as 20, 30 and 50 respectively. From perusal of the marks awarded in each component of APARs of 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, we are of the opinion that the 66 marks awarded out of 100 marks and not out of 300 marks. Therefore, respondents have committed grave mistake in reducing marks of the applicant from 66 marks to 26.5 marks.
10.4 It is the stand of the respondents that the Annexure-A/1 order dated 05.07.2013 has been issued based on the decision given by the Hon'ble Guwahati Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Shri Rajib Kumar Kalita vs. ICFRE & Ors, (OA No.259/2009) decided on 17.02.2010. After perusal of the judgment it reveals that in that case in the first table marks were awarded out of 100 in each component therefore it were distributed in the ratio of 60,30 and 10. Whereas in the present case the respondent in the first table itself converted the marks treated it out of 20,30 and 50. Therefore the respondent were not right in further converting the marks assuming that in earlier table marks were out 100 in each component.
10.5 This Tribunal in the matter of Dr. Ranjana Arya vs. UOI & Ors, (OA No.153/2010), decided on 20.07.2012 after dealing with the 19 (OA No.526/2013) judgment of Shri Rajib Kumar Kalita (supra) has held that non- communication of lower marks is illegal in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC. In that matter, it had come to the notice of this Tribunal that the marks of two individuals remained the same without any truncation, while it is only with reference to the applicant therein that there had been a truncation. Reference was made to the report in respect of one Dr. Sarita Arya and Dr. Srivastava whose marks had been retained intact. It was the case of the applicant therein that the marks given by the Reporting Officer were duly accepted by the Reviewing Authority, but were not accepted by the Screening Committee which had recalculated the marks showing different rules applied to three scientists of the same category resulting in gross injustice. This tribunal in the case of Dr. Ranjana Arya, has held as under:-
"17. Thus, non communication of lower grade is certainly a mistake committed by the respondents.
18. In so far as re-evaluation is concerned, while there is no doubt that the screening committee enjoys discretion to have its own evaluation, what is to be seen is whether the Screening Committee had adopted a uniform pattern for consideration. Reducing the marks with reference to the applicant and retaining the marks awarded by the Reporting and Reviewing Officer in the other cases would go to show that the Screening Committee did not act uniformly. Again, the reason for 20 (OA No.526/2013) reducing the marks by calculating the marks for 60 etc., as explained in the counter is also not understood. The marks awarded were for 100 and there is no need to have the marks recalculated as had been done.
"19. In view of the above, from both the score-non communication as also re-evaluation, the respondents have gone wrong.
20. In view of the above, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed to-
(a) Ignore the ACR which are below bench marks and not communicated to the applicant.
(b) Adopt uniform method of assessment as per the APAR without truncating the marks awarded by the Reporting/Reviewing Authority, as had been done in the case of certain other Scientists mentioned in the OA.
21. This process shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order and follow up action taken accordingly."
10.6 So far as the rejection of the applicant's candidature on the ground that the Post Graduation in Computer Science is not a valid degree for being considered for his promotion as Scientist E is concerned, we find no rule that an incumbent holding the qualification of Post Graduation in Computer Science, would be ineligible for consideration to higher post of Scientist 'E' from Scientist 'D'. The case of similarly situated person i.e. Smt. Madhumita Biswas has been considered and granted promotion to the higher post by the respondent. 10.7 In view of the above, the impugned memorandum dated 05.07.2013 (Annexure-A/1) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the marks 66 out of 100 and consider the case of the 21 (OA No.526/2013) applicant for promotion from the post of Scientist D to Scientist E w.e.f. 01.01.2010 if he is otherwise eligible. This exercise shall be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10.8 The OA is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs.
(AMIT SAHAI) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) rss