Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
T K Sahoo vs M/O Science And Technology on 28 July, 2022
1 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
Reserved on 12.07.2022 Pronounced on 28.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (A)
THE HON'BLE MR. SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
Sri Tapas Kumar Sahoo, aged about 41 years, S/O
Pradyumna Kumar Sahoo, At/PO-Laxminarayanpur
Sahi, P.S Keonjhar Bazar, Dist-Keonjhar, Odisha, at
present, working as Sr. Technical Officer(1), C.S.I.R,
Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology
(IMMT), P.O RRL Acharyavihar, Bhubaneswar
751013, Dist-Khurda, Odisha
......Applicant
VERSUS
Union of India represented through;
1) Secretary, Department of Science & Technology
Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-
110 016.
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
represented through;
2) Director General, Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi
Marg, New Delhi, 110 001.
2 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
3) Joint Secretary (Admn.), Council of Scientific and
Industrial Research, 2, Rafi Marg, Anusandhan
Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4) Director, CSIR-Institute of Minerals & Materials
Technology, P.O-RRL, Bhubaneswar-751013, Dist-
Khurda, Odisha.
......Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. K.C.Kanungo, Counsel
For the Respondents: Mr. A.Pradhan, Counsel
ORDER
Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J):
Shorn of unnecessary details it would suffice to state that the case of the applicant is that after possessing qualification of Diploma in Engineering, he joined the service under the respondent no. 2 on 03.02.2005 as Junior Technical Assistant, Gr. III (1). In course of employment, he was further promoted to Gr. II (2) and subsequently to Gr. III (2). By taking permission of the authorities he acquired the qualification of B.Tech in Engineering (Metallurgical) from Indian Institute of Metal, Kolkata in the year 2007 which is the entry level qualification of Gr. IV Scientific staff. After being unsuccessful by making representation, the applicant has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 praying inter alia as under:
3 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
i. Be pleased to hold that the applicant is eligible to get the benefit of two years early promotion w.e..f 03.02.2015 to the promoted post of Sr. Technical Officer (I)/Gr. III (4) and to direct the Respondents to modify the order of promotion under Annexure A/15 to the extent the applicant is concerned for the ends of justice. And ii. Be further pleased to quash Annexure A/8 for its retrospective operation w.e.f. 1.6.2011 in which the entry level qualification of Gr. IV is prescribed as ME/M. Tech/M. Vet Sc./M.D or should have submitted a thesis leading to PH.D (Sc/Engg.) or B. Tech/M.Sc along with a post Graduate degree in intellectual property law for the purpose of getting two years early assessment for Gr. III technical staff for the ends of justice. And iii. Be further pleased to quash Annexure A/17 for the ends of justice. And iv. Be further pleased to issue any order/further order (s) or direction (s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. And v. The cost of the application may kindly be allowed.
2. The respondents contested the matter inter alia stating that it is not correct to state that Group I, Group II (support staff) and Group III (Technical Staff) and Group IV (R&D) scientific staff are governed by CSI Service Rules, 1994. Group IV Scientists (R&D scientific staff) are no more governed by the said rules as claimed by the applicant, rather these Group IV (R&D Scientific staff) are being governed by a different set of recruitment and assessment promotion rules as contained in CSIR Scientists Recruitment and Assessment 4 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020 Promotion, Rules 2001. Further it is submitted that it is not correct to state that the governing body of CSIR extended the benefit of two years early assessment to those employees who joined CSIR with entry level qualification of next higher group because keeping in mind the intention to encourage the employees to keep pace with the new knowledge, the CSIR vide letter dated 22.09.2006 had clearly stated that benefit of two years early assessment under para 2.3.4 of Revised MANAS cannot extended to those incumbents who joined CSIR service with entry level qualification of next higher group. The sum and substance of the respondent is that it is not to correct to state that by order under annexure A/6 the CSIR rules were amended. Several CSIR laboratories/institution had sought clarification on the entry level qualification of Group IV and with due discussion, deliberation and approval of the competent authority it was clarified vide Annexure A/6 that entry level qualification for Group IV is ME/M. Tech/M. Vet Sc./M.D or should have submitted a thesis leading to PH.D (Sc/Engg.) or B. Tech/M.Sc along with a post Graduate degree in intellectual property law with an intention to encourage the employees to keep pace with the new knowledge as a matter of policy. Accordingly the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA. 5 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
4. This matter was taken up along with O.A. No. 52/2020 and was heard analogously since the issues involved and arguments advanced by the parties were same and similar to the effect as to whether the respondents imposed new qualification retrospectively other than what has been provided in Rules through Annexure A/8 and that as to whether the applicant is discriminated in granting the benefits. This Tribunal, in OA 52/2020 considered the matter in depth, relevant portion of which are quoted below:
"7. From the records and arguments advanced by the parties the short point arises for consideration of this Tribunal is, if whether the respondents imposed new qualification retrospectively other than what has been provided in Rules through Annexure A/6. In this regard it is apt to quote the relevant portion of the Rule 6.2 amended on 01.06.2011 for entry level post as under:
Existing Revised Rules 6.2: The minimum qualification, experience and maximum Rules 6.2: The minimum qualification, experience
age limits for direct recruitment of Group IV Scientists at various and maximum age limits for direct recruitment of levels shall be as follows Group IV Scientists at various levels shall be as follows Sl Group Qualification Experi Age Sl Group Qualification Experi Age . Grade ence limit . Grade ence limit N and not N and not o. design excee o. design excee ation ding ation ding and and scale of scale of pay of pay of the the post post 1 Scienti 1st class NIL 35 1 Trainee BE/B.Tech with - 28 st Gr. M.SC/BE/B.Tech/MBA/M.Lib years Scienti minimum 70% years IV (1) Sci/MCA/MBBS or equivalent st marks or 7.0 Rs. qualifications or CGPA 8000- M.Tech/ME/M.VetSC/MD or 13500 recognized equivalent /- qualifications or PhD 2 Scienti 1st Calss 3 35 2. Scienti ME/M.Tech/M.V 32 st Gr M.Sc/BE/B.Tech/MBA years years st et.Sc/MD years IV (2) M.LibSci/MCA/MBBS or Or Rs. equivalent qualifications or BTech/M.SC 10000- M. Tech/ME/M.Vet Sc/MD or 2 with post 15200 recognized equivalent years graduate degree qualifications or in intellectual 6 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020 PHD or property law (1st PhD (Engg) 1 class or 30% on years an aggregate or NIL equivalent GPA ) or BE/BTech with advanced diploma from AcSIR with distinction or PhD (Sc/Engg) submitted XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX
8. Profitably the relevant portion of the order under Annexure A/6 dated is quoted below:
"References have been received from several CSIR labs/institutes seeking clarification on the entry level qualified of Group IV which is required by the Group III staff to be considered for two years early assessment under Rule 2.3.4 of the Revised MANAS.
In this regard with the approval of DG, CSIR in consultation with CSIR-RAB, it is clarified that w.e.f. 01.06.2011, as per CSRAP Rules 2001 (amended from time to time) the entry level qualification for Group IV is ME/M.Tech/M. Vet Sc/MD or should have submitted a thesis leading to PhD (Sc/Engg.) or B. Tech/M.Sc along with a Post Graduate Degree in Intellectual Property Law.
Hence the requests of Technical Staff i.e. group III staff for the purpose of two years early assessment may be dealt with accordingly."
9. Admittedly the applicant in the meantime after being qualified was promoted to the next higher post. It is also admitted fact that the applicant acquired the qualification of B.Tech in Civil Engineering through IGNOU in the year 2012 i.e. after amendment to Rule 9 of CSIR Scientists Recruitment and Assessment Promotion (CSRAP) Rules, 2001 was made on 01.06.2011 whereby the educational qualification required was raised. The respondents vide letter dated 07.02.2019 (Annexure A/6) issued clarification related to 7 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020 educational qualification provided under the rules amended on 01.06.2011. It is settled law that the clarification is explanatory and/or clarificatory and will have a retrospective effect (see S B Chatterjee v SD Majumdar, 2007 10 SCC 513, and Ashok Lenka v Rishi Dikshit, 2006 9 SCC 90). On examination of the educational qualification provided in the rules vis a vis the clarification issued under Annexure A/6, it cannot be said that the respondents have imposed any additional qualification through Annexure A/6. By applying the law quoted above this being a clarification is bound to take place w.e.f. the date of issue of new amended rules i.e. 01.06.2011. Thus the stand taken by the applicant does not hold any water enabling this Tribunal to interfere on this count. The next submission of learned counsel for the applicant that in similar circumstances clarification was sought from the headquarter who upon examination of the position clarified that higher qualification of B. Tech in Mechanical Engineering can be considered for 2 years early assessment promotion in term of Para 2.3.4 of Revised MANAS, based on which persons having B Tech qualification got the benefit whereas without any basis the authority concerned has taken a U- Turn by issuing Annexure A/6 which is discriminatory and violative of provision of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It is settled law that Article 14 of Constitution of India is not meant to perpetuate illegality of fraud even by extending the wrong decision taken in one case. In Chama Lal v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 15 SCC 715, it was held:
"16. More so, it is also settled legal proposition that Article 14 does not envisage for negative equality. In case a wrong benefit has been conferred upon someone inadvertently or otherwise, it may not be a ground to grant similar relief to others. This court in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 considered this issue and held as under
(SCC P. 85, Para 8) '8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in 8 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020 other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. [Vide Chandigarh Admn. V. Jagjit Singh, (1995) 1 SCC 745, Anand Buttons Ltd. V. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 164, K. K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., (2006) 3 SCC 581 and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455.]"
The above being settled position of law the claim of the applicant that since the benefit has been granted to others bereft of the condition put in Annexure A/6, he is entitled to the same does not stand to scrutiny of law. Hence the said argument of learned counsel for the applicant is rejected.
10. In view of the above discussion and settled position of law stated above, we do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant vide order dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure A/15) warranting judicial interference by this Tribunal."
9 O.A.No. 260/00027 of 2020
5. In view of the order quoted above, meeting and answering the issues, we do not see any merit in this O.A. Accordingly the OA is dismissed being devoid of merit leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY) Member (Judicial) Member (Admn.) CSK