Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sanjay Pandey S/O Late Shri Kamaldeo ... vs Indian Council Of Agriculture Research ... on 13 January, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH,
CIRCUIT SITTING: INDORE
Original Application No.201/00711/2014
Indore, this Wednesday, the 13th day of January, 2016
Dr. K.B. Suresh, Judicial Member
Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
Sanjay Pandey S/o Late Shri Kamaldeo Panday, Aged 49 years
Technical Officer T-7-8, Directorate Soyabean Research, Khandwa Road,
Indore R/o 89A,Shivani Puri Colony, Bhawarkuva
Indore 452018 (M.P.) - Applicant
(By Advocate Shri P.J. Mehta)
V e r s u s
1. Indian Council of Agriculture Research through its Director, General Krushi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110114
2. Indian Council of Agriculture Research Through its Dy. Secretary, (CS) Krushi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi 110114 -Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Anand Soni)
ORDER(ORAL)
By Dr. K.B. Suresh, JM.-
Heard.
2. The matter relates to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (for short ICAR). It is shocking to note that the applicant who was actually not competent has been promoted against the tenets of recruitment rule. A person with MA Economics and another person with B.Com yet another person with B.Sc. and M.A. Economics, a person with B.Sc Sociology and B.Sc. Agriculture and M.A. Sociology another person is B.Sc. zoology, yet another person B.Com another person with B.A are allowed to work and be promoted as Scientist and Technical Staff what these import is beyond imagination. These people have taken the people of India for a ride when an incompetent man holds a post naturally he can only bring diminishment to the post. It is no doubt that ICAR management all these years have done things which are absolutely illegal and have denied competent persons the opportunity to work. This therefore destroyed the constitutional right of competitively meritorious protected under Article 13 and 14 of the Constitution of the India. Why this not was found out till now is a mystery for everyone.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant rely on the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Writ petition (Civil) No.1379/2014 wherein the Honble Apex Court ruling reported in Shekhar Bose Vs. Union of India reported in 2007 (1) SCC 222 is quoted with appreciation. We will quote it down for clearer enunciation:-
9. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the applicants have joined service during the period 1973 to 1987 and have put in long years of service with the respondents. During this period they have faced various assessment Boards and have earned several promotions. The qualifications they were holding were well known to the respondents. However, no action was taken by them for almost 25 to 30 years and now after so much delay they propose to revert them to posts they were holding 10 to 15 years back. The respondents claim that they are only rectifying a mistake which occurred in the past. In our opinion, it did not require much effort on the part of the respondents to discover that the applicants did not possess the requisite qualification as this would be obvious from the service record of these applicants. It is therefore shocking that the respondents have taken so much time to discover their mistake. In fact, it appears that so far the respondents had been knowingly letting the applicant discharge their duties and even promoting them as and when due but now as an afterthought they have decided to revert them. One of the applicants Sh. Parshottam joined service way back in 1973 and has retired in July 2012. His case will now be similarly placed as that of Smt. Sushila Dubey whom the respondents have permitted to retire without reversion and whose retiral benefits have also been released.
10. While the applicants counsel could not cite any rule or judicial precedent to support his case yet in our opinion reversion of the applicants after such long years of service is shocking and unjustified. It will cause irreparable loss to the careers of the applicants. Applicants are not at fault at this as their educational qualifications were well known to the respondents and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. Yet they were not only appointed but also allowed to work and earn promotions for so many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we quash reversion notices issued to the applicants. The applicants will be allowed to work in their respective grades. However we do not propose to give any direction regarding further promotions of the applicants.
4. But at the same time how can an economist be technically competent to decide realms of agricultural science is the thing which we cannot understand. Besides which the amended recruitment rules was brought can bring into force in 03.02.2000. The applicant had been given a wrong promotion on 06.10.2000. Therefore without any doubt the promotion had been granted to him defying the recruitment rules which were in force.
5. It now appears that ICAR has woken up and is proposing to revert the applicant. But then we make it clear that no recovery can be made from them as the wrong promotion was not due to their fault. Here also we will accept the tenets of Shekhar Boses judgment and would say that there should only be prospective reflection in applicants career as the mistake is not his.
6. But at the same time we uphold the order of the ICAR saying that he had resumed a wrong promotion. But since 15 years have already lapsed for such promotion, we do not think that it should leave any permanent mark on applicants career.
7. At this point of time learned counsel for the applicant would say that in 2006 the 2000 rules were further amended and some more liquidity was brought in to it. We do not want to enter into such things but would say that the authorities who were at the helm of affairs of the ICAR at that point of time had failed the nation. A copy of this order will be sent to the Cabinet Secretary for him to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the concerned officers if found necessary. But the applicant herein has a special grace as under in force, he orders will retire as such because its only a matter of few days.
8. But then we allow the applicant to make a representation to the respondents as he claims that he is M.Sc. in Plant breeding and Genetics which may also be a crucial subject for ICAR we leave it to them to decide on this aspects.
9. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed off with above directions. No costs.
(G.P.Singhal) (Dr. K.B. Suresh) Administrative Member Judicial Member
kc
4
OA No.201/00711/2014
Page 4 of 4