Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Kiran Kushwaha vs Govt. Of Nctd on 19 May, 2022
1
Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2224/2021
M.A. No. 2841/2021
This the 19th day of May, 2022
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
Dr. Kiran Kushwaha,
D/o Sh. Gyan Chandra Kushwaha,
R/o E-8, ITI Pusa Campus Pusa,
New Delhi - 12.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Praveen Swarup)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT Delhi,
Through Principal Secretary (Govt. of NCT
Department Of Training and Technical
Education),
Muni Maya Ram Marg Pitampura,
New Delhi - 34.
2. The Director, GNCTD,
(Deptt of Training and Technical Education),
Muni Maya Ram Marg Pitampura,
New Delhi - 34.
3. The Dy. Director (E-1),
Deptt of Training and Technical Education,
Muni Maya Ram Marg Pitampura,
New Delhi - 34.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand)
2
Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The applicant, a group „A‟ Officer in the Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and presently posted as Mathematics Lecturer in Pusa Institute of Technology, New Delhi is aggrieved with the order dated 29.09.2021 whereby, she was called for interview to be held on 07.10.2021 for time bound financial upgradation of Academic Grade Pay (AGP) 9000/-.
2. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, some similarly placed Lecturers who were senior to the applicant were granted AGP of 9000/- without facing the interview, as the requirement of interview was made applicable to only those Lecturers who joined services after 5th March, 2010, i.e., after issuance of clarification by the AICTE. It is averred by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has already completed three years of service in AGP 8000/- on 24.03.2016, which is pre-requisite for becoming entitled for AGP 9000/-. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be considered for the said benefit. He further averred that the said financial 3 Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021 upgradation is granted under Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) and it is not to be mixed with promotion as the said benefit is time bound and irrespective of vacancies unlike promotion. He alleged that the process adopted by the respondents for grant of the benefit of AGP 9000/- is defective.
3. It is further stated that as the applicant joined service in the year 2004, she was not required to appear in the interview for AGP 9000/-. However, in terms of the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 06.10.2021, for abundant caution the applicant appeared in interview on 07.10.2021. Learned counsel further added that as per the clarification issued by AICTE on 04.01.2016 the applicant has to submit only the Academic Performance Indicator (API) on Performance Based Appraisal System (PBAS). It is further stated that the representation preferred by the applicant in this behalf on 30.09.2021 to the respondents is still unanswered. Hence, the applicant moved the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"(a) Quash the order dated 29.09.2021 whereby the respondent Directorate of Training and Technical Education, GNCTD has called the applicant for interview by 4 Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021 the Selection Committee on 07.10.2021 for being considered for financial upgradation of AGP 9000/-
(b) Direct the respondents to grant AGP 9000/- to the applicant without calling her for interview.
(c) pass any such order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fir and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. Refuting the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the OA and submitted that the rule clearly states that interview is a part of process to grant CAS (AGP 9000/-) to Lecturer, and so far as similarly placed employees are concerned, they have also gone through the process of interview before getting the benefit of AGP 9000/-.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the pleadings.
6. During the course of arguments, Mr. Amit Anand handed over a compilation containing a notification of AICTE dated 4th January 2016 and to support of his contention, drew our attention to internal pages 31 and 32 thereof. The relevant para no. 3.8 reads as under :-
5
Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021
"3.8 Lecturer (Selection Grade)
completing three years of teaching in the grade of Rs.8000 (stage3) shall be eligible subject to the qualifying conditions and the API based PBAS requirements prescribed by these Regulations, to move to the Pay Band of Rs.37400-67000 with next higher grade of Rs.9000 (stage 4) and to be re-
designated as Lecturer (Selection Grade). However, those joining the Service after 5th March 2010, shall have also earned Ph. D in addition to above mentioned requirements to move to the stage 4 subject to following :-
(a) Satisfying the required credit points as per API based PBAS requirements as provided in Tables of Appendix I and
(b) An assessment by a duly constituted Selection Committee as suggested for the direct recruitment of Head of Department."
He further took us to page 32, and the relevant portion below column V reads as under :-
"Lecturer (Scl. Grade) : (stage 3 AGP 8000 to stage 4 AGP 9000)-
30% Contribution to Research, 50% Assessment of domain knowledge and teaching practices, 20% Interview performance"
7. It is clear from the above that interview is part and parcel of the process to grant CAS (AGP 9000/-) to the Lecturers. Hence, the argument of the applicant cannot be sustained. Moreover, the applicant herself admitted that she appeared in the interview which clearly shows that the applicant very well knew that interview is the part of process for 6 Item No. 117 O.A. No. 2224 /2021 getting the benefit of AGP 9000/- and so far as the contention that she appeared in interview in terms of the interim order passed by this Tribunal on 06.10.2021, it is made clear that it was left open to the applicant to appear in the interview as the words "if she so desires" were used in the aforesaid order. Hence, the said argument of the applicant does not hold water and is rejected outrightly.
8. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that as result of the interview is yet to be declared, it is not open for the applicant to conclude anything on mere apprehension. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed being premature and based on apprehension. Pending M.A, if any shall also stand disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/Mbt/