Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Nirmal Chandra vs Director General & Secretary (Dare) on 9 February, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No.1631/2011 MA No.3379/2011 Reserved on 06.02.2012 Pronounced on 09.02.2012 Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Dr. Nirmal Chandra, Principal Scientist, Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora-263601 (Uttarakhand) Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Shrigopal Aggarwal) Versus 1. Director General & Secretary (DARE), Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110014. 2. Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Through Chairman, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan-1, Pusa, New Delhi-10012. 3. Union of India, Through Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-14. 4. Director, Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora-263601 (Uttarakhand). Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri Gagan Mathur) : ORDER :
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Dr. Nirmal Chandra, Principal Scientist in Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora (VPKAS in short) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) joined the ICAR as Scientist on 29.01.1992 and his services were transferred to VPKAS, Almora as Scientist in Social Science Section on 11.01.1993. There, he got promotion to the grade of Senior Scientist on 22.12.1998 and further promoted as Principal Scientist on 21.12.2006. He was transferred on 16.8.2007 to the National Resource Management Division, lateron the said Division was renamed as Crop Production Division (CPD in short). The applicant had the apprehension that the Director of the Institute might not include the discipline of Agricultural Extension to which the applicant belongs as part of the Essential Qualification (EQ) for the post of Head, Crop Production Division. With the said apprehension, he represented through a letter on 06.09.2010 (page 19) stating therein that (a) the discipline of Agricultural Extension should be included in the EQ for the said post; (b) he being the senior most Principal Scientist of the Division, he should be made Incharge of the Head of Crop Production Division when Dr. A.K. Srivastava, the then head of the Division would be retiring on 31.12.2010 and (c) he should not be transferred from CPD to any other Division. He followed up the same with another representation dated 03.11.2010 (page 22). It is the case of the applicant that he submitted all his representations through proper channel but instead of responding to his representation, the third respondent called his explanation vide letter dated 04.11.2010 ( page 23) as to why he submitted his representations directly to the second respondent and not through proper channel. The applicant submitted his explanation on 06.11.2010 (page 24-25). He came to know from the Administrative Officers letter dated 11.11.2010 (page 26) that his letters have not been forwarded to the second respondent as those were not addressed to Director, VPKAS. It is further averred by the applicant that as per the Recruitment Rules, he was fully qualified to be considered for the post of Head, Crop Production Division at VPKAS, Almora. But the first respondent while issuing the advertisement No.01/2011 at Item No.24 to fill up the post of Head, Crop Production Division, Almora, did not include the Agricultural Extension discipline as one of the essential qualifications. It is, therefore, stated that the applicants apprehension has come out to be true in the advertisement. Thus, challenging the said advertisement, the applicant is before this Tribunal in the instant OA seeking direction to the respondents to defer the date of interview and to include Agricultural Extension as one of the disciples in the EQ which would enable him to be considered for the post of Head, CPD, VPKAS, Almora.
2. Shri Shrigopal Aggarwal, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant had become victim of an Arbitrary, Unfair & Discriminatory approach of the Respondents who have adopted three different criterion/parameters for a particular post falling vacant under three different Institutes of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi at three different points of time. He terms the said action of the respondents as arbitrary since the advertisement No.01/2011 did not include Agricultural Extension as one of the disciplines for selection to the post of Head, Division of Crop Production at VPKAS, Almora. Instead of forwarding applicants two representations, he was charged by calling for explanation. His submission is that as per the modified Recruitment Rules issued on 19.4.2007, the candidates should be from relevant subject and the applicant working as the Principal Scientist in the CPD from August, 2007 to December, 2010 has the experience in the relevant field. He raises a question as to if the applicants discipline of Agricultural Extension was not relevant, why he was allowed to work in the CPD for more than 3 years. It is further contended that Agricultural Extension has been included in the EQ for Head CPD of other Institutes under ICAR whereas the same is excluded for the post in VPKAS Almora. Shri Aggarwal terms the same as double standard and against the principles of equality before law and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, terming action of the respondents as the case of non-application of mind, he places his reliance on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in A. Kraipak Versus Union of India [1969-2-SCC-212]; Management of M/s M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar and Others [1990-2-SCC-48]. And S.B. Bhattacharjee Versus S.D. Majumdar and Others [2007-10-SCC-513].
3. While issuing notice to the respondents on 16.5.2011, Tribunal passed the order on interim relief to the effect that any promotion made to the post of Head, Division of Crop Production would be subject to decision of present OA. The said interim direction has been continuing.
4. Opposing the grounds taken by the applicant, the respondents have filed the reply affidavit on 04.11.2011 through Shri Sri Gagan Mathur, learned counsel. Shri Mathur submits that the applicant as the Principal Scientist was not transferred to the Crop Production Division but only attached with Head, Crop Production Division to carry out the work related to the NAIP and has not been looking after the research work of Crop Production Division, hence cannot be considered in Crop Production Division. However, he is the senior most Principal Scientist in Social Science Section, and based on this fact he has been given the responsibility of Incharge, Social Science Section. He further clarifies that that advertisement under challenge conforms to the Recruitment Rules and the discipline of Agricultural Extension is not included as one of the essential qualifications for the post of Head, Division of Crop Production at VPKAS by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research because at VPKAS, Almora Agricultural Extension is not the discipline of Crop Production Division. He submits that applicants claim is not admissible. Moreover, he is not an applicant for the post. Hence, Shri Mathur urges to dismiss the OA and to vacate the interim direction issued on 16.05.2011.
5. Having heard the contentions of the parties, we perused the pleadings as well. The controversy for consideration is : whether non inclusion of Agricultural Extension as one of the disciplines in the Essential Qualification in the item 24 of ASRB Advertisement No.01/2011 for the post of Head, Division of Crop Production in VPKAS, Almora is legally sustainable or not?
6. In view of the above issue, we may refer to the Item No.24 of the advertisement No.01/2011 issued by ASRB which is extracted below :-
Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora
24. Head Division of Crop Production (One Post) Qualifications Essential : (i) Doctoral degree in Agricultural Chemistry/Agronomy / Soil Science/ Crop Physiology including relevant basic sciences. (ii) & (iii) As in Item no.8 above.
Desirable : Specialization in hill farming, resource conservation and wasteland management. We may also quote (i) and (ii) from Item No.8 of the said advertisement which reads as follows :-
(i) A Scientist in the pay scale of (Rs.16400-20000) (pre-revised or in an equivalent position. OR 8 years experience as a Senior Scientist (Rs.12000-18300) (pre-revised) or in an equivalent position OR An eminent scientist having proven record of scientific contribution working in a reputed organization/ institute having at least 13 years experience in the relevant subject (ii) Evidence of publications activities contributions to suggest that ht candidate has a broad vision/ perspective on agricultural research
7. The question arises whether the advertisement conforms to the provisions in the Recruitment Rules. The Amendment in the Model Qualification for the post of Head of Division of ICAR Institutes was issued vide letter dated 19.4.2007 available at Annexure-A-10 of the paper book. Following was issued with the approval of the Governing Body of ICAR :
Designation and scale of the post Revised Model Qualifications and Experience
1. Head of Division/ Head of Regional Station, Project Coordinator and Zonal Coordinator (Rs.16,400-22400) 1. Doctoral degree in the relevant subject.
2. A Scientist in the pay scale of Rs.16400-20,000 or in an equivalent position.
OR 8 years experience as a Senior Scientist (Rs.12000- 18500) or in an equivalent Position OR An eminent Scientist having proven record of scientific contribution working in reputed organization/ institute having at least 13 years experience in the relevant subject.
3. Evidence of contribution of research/ teaching/ extension education as supported by published work/ innovations.
4. Specialization (to be defined).
2. Director/ Project Director, Joint Director of Institutes notified as University, ADG (Rs.16400-22400) 1. Doctoral degree in the relevant subject.
2. At least 5 years experience as a scientist in the pay scale of Rs.16400-20000 or in an equivalent post.
OR An eminent scientist having roved record of Scientific contribution working in a reputed organization/ institute having at least 18 years experience in the relevant subject.
3. Evidence or contribution to research/ teaching/ extension education supported by published work/innovations.
4. Specialization (to be defined)
8. As per the above Model Qualification, the ASRB has received the proposal from Director VPKAS and on a careful scrutiny of both the model Qualification and the advertisement we could not notice which is dehors the Model Qualification issued in the letter dated 19.4.2007.
9. It must be noted that the applicant did not apply for the post of Head, CPD, VPKAS, Almora as per the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) advertisement No.01/2011 (Item No.24), he has no locus to agitate in the matter. It is pertinent to submit here that, ASRB being the recruiting agency established by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (hereinafter referred to as ICAR), invites application under Direct Selection to various categories of scientific posts in Indian Council of Agricultural Research Hqrd. Office and its Institutes, Project Directorates, National Research Centres, Bureaus based on the requisitions received for the posts from the personnel Division, Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Each institute has its own specific requirements and the Scientists posts in different Divisions having same designation may have different functional needs and the EQ is prescribed on the basis of job requirements. EQ cannot be neutral and not individual centric. Hence, in our considered opinion, the EQ prescribed in the said advertisement cannot be faulted either on the grounds of non-application of mind or discriminatory/ arbitrary approach. In this context, it may be mentioned that we do not find any support of the relied on judgments for the claims raised by the applicant.
10. We note that the applicant has only three years experience as Scientist in the CPD whereas, model qualification prescribes 13 years of experience. On this score, the applicant also fails to convince us in respect of his claims.
11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons stated within, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned advertisement is legally sustainable. Thus, finding no merits, the OA is dismissed and the interim direction issued on 16.5.2011 is vacated. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V.K. Bali )
Member Chairman
rk