Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Dr Fateh Chand Tuteja vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 21 February, 2024
1 (OA No.290/00493/2013)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00493/2013
Pronounced on : 13.03.2024
(Reserved on : 21.02.2023)
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
Dr. Fateh Chand Tuteja S/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Tuteja, aged about 47
years, R/o 5 D 64, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
Presently working on the post of Senior Scientist, National Research
Centre on Camel, Jorbeer, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
.......Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S.K. Malik.
Versus
1. The Indian Council of Agriculture Research through its Secretary,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110114.
2. The Director General, Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110114.
3. Chairman, Agricultural Scientist Recruitment Board, Krishi
Anushandhan-1 PUSA, New Delhi-110012.
4. Deputy Secretary (P), Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110114.
........Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Bissa.
2 (OA No.290/00493/2013)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Amit Sahai, Member (A)
1. Being aggrieved by office order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) whereby the recommendations of the ASRB for not granting the applicant grade of Principal Scientist and a letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2), vide which the prayer to review the assessment was rejected, the applicant has preferred this OA seeking quashing of the above orders as also seeking direction against the respondent to reconsider the case of the applicant for promotion, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Facts of the case in brief are as under-
2.1 The applicant was initially appointed on the post of Scientist w.e.f. 13.02.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- with the respondent's ICAR-NAARM (National Academy of Agricultural Research Management), Hyderabad. He was promoted to the post of Scientist (SS) in the pay scale of Rs.10,000-15200/- w.e.f. 03.02.2000. Further, he was promoted on the post of Senior Scientist in the pay scale of Rs.12000-18300/- w.e.f. 13.02.2004. As per the recommendations of 3 (OA No.290/00493/2013) the 6th CPC, the applicant has been granted Grade Pay of Rs.9000/- in the PB-IV w.e.f. 13.02.2007. Vide letter dated 04.11.2011 issued by the respondents wherein the revised performance evaluation/score card for promotions/upward movement of ARS Scientists under the revised Career Advancement Scheme for considering the case of ARS Scientist for career advancement falling due on or after 01.01.2009. In Para 2, the minimum marks (cut off % age) required for placement in the next RGP/Promotion shall be 75% at each stage of evaluation. 2.2 It is averred that during the period of assessment from 13.02.2007 to 12.02.2010, he has worked on various research projects including external projects, developed innovative technologies and scientific publications in national and international journals of NAAS rating. In support of the assessment for the period under various heads, he has submitted various documents which have been duly verified by the Director, Head of Institution. Vide letter dated 09.08.2012 (Annexure A/5), the applicant was called for an interview for the post of Principal Scientist. Interview was to be held on 04.09.2012 in the office of respondent no.3. On 04.09.2012, total 04 Scientists in the discipline of Veterinary Medicine appeared including the applicant. Except applicant, 4 (OA No.290/00493/2013) rest all the three candidates were promoted to the post of Principal Scientist.
2.3 It is further averred that total marks for various activities and annual assessment report are 80 marks and 20 marks are allotted for interview. For promotion to the post of Principal Scientist one has to secure 75% minimum marks. As per his performance and presentation before the interview Board, the applicant expected 15 marks out of 20. As claimed by the applicant, even if he got 05 marks out of 20 marks in the interview then too, he would have been selected for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist. Respondents vide impugned order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) intimated the applicant that he has not been recommended for the post of Principal Scientist.
2.4 The applicant made a representation dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure A/6) through proper channel to the respondents with complete details for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist requesting for re-evaluation of his candidature for promotion/upward movement from Senior Scientist to Principal Scientist. Since no reply was received for almost three months, again reminder dated 02.07.2013 was forwarded through proper channel to respondent no.3. Vide impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) it was communicated to the applicant 5 (OA No.290/00493/2013) that there is no provision in the rules to review the recommendations of the selection committee of Agriculture Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB). It is not possible to accede to the request for review of promotion to the post of Principal Scientist as per revised CAS effective from 01.01.2009, and without deciding his representation by a speaking order. Being aggrieved by his non-recommendation for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by way of filing this Original Application for redressal of his grievance.
3. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and as per Rule 23 (C) of its Rules and Bye Laws, ICAR may sue or be sued only through Secretary, ICAR. Thus, respondents no.2 & 4 i.e. Director General, ICAR and Deputy Secretary (P) are neither proper nor necessary parties for adjudication of the issues raised in this OA and thus the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
3.1 It is the reply of the respondent that the revised Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) is effective from 01.01.2009 for Scientists engaged in Research and Teaching, Research & Extension, Scientists of NAARM/ZPDs/AICRPs/ICAR Head Quarters. The assessment 6 (OA No.290/00493/2013) proposal of the applicant for the period from 13.02.2007 to 12.02.2010 was received in the Board on 21.03.2012. The applicant appeared before the Selection Committee on 04.09.2012. The applicant's promotion to the grade of Principal Scientist w.e.f. 13.02.2010 was considered by the Selection Committee, taking into account, the assessment proposal of the applicant for the relevant assessment period from 13.02.2007 to 12.02.2010, AARs for the relevant period and his performance in the interview on 04.09.2012 and the Selection Committee awarded him the 54 out of 68 marks for his Achievements, 07 out of 12 marks for Annual Assessment Reports and 10 out of 20 marks for his Presentation and Interview, he received total 71 marks out of 100.
3.2 It is averred that since the applicant could not get a minimum of 75 marks (cut-off marks), he has not been recommended for promotion by the Selection Committee. The ASRB is a recommending Body whereas the final approval on the recommendations of the Selection Committee for promotion/not-promotion/deferred promotion in respect of Senior Scientists under the revised CAS has been done by the Council with the approval of the competent authority. Since the recommendations made by the Selection Committee were accepted by 7 (OA No.290/00493/2013) the competent authority, therefore, the applicant could not be promoted to the next higher post i.e. Principal Scientist.
3.3 Since the impugned order dated 08.02.2013 and the impugned order dated 11/12.09.2013 have been issued strictly in accordance with law (i.e. Revised Career Advancement Scheme for ARS Scientists of ICAR), therefore, the applicant is not entitled to maintain this OA. The recommendations of ASRB are based strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down under the CAS effective from 01.01.2009 for Scientists like the applicant, which has not been challenged in the OA. Further, the letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2), is also speaking one and conveys that since there is no provision in the rules to review the recommendation of the Selection Committee of ASRB, it is not possible to accede to the request for review of promotion to the post of Principal Scientist. The respondents prayed that the OA filed by the applicant is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed out-rightly.
4. In the grounds of challenging this OA the applicant submits that as per revised Career Advancement Scheme (Annexure A/3) dated 04.11.2011 there is nothing that recommendations of the ASRB cannot be reviewed to undo the illegality in assessment of performance of scientist which is purely based on assessment of various activities of the 8 (OA No.290/00493/2013) scientist for the assessment period. Applicant submitted documentary proofs along with application proforma and objects based on which why he should not be given minimum marks as per criteria. Without considering the points raised by the applicant and as to how he will get minimum marks, respondent rejected the case of the applicant without any application of mind. Hence, the action of respondents in rejecting the representation of the applicant by a non-speaking order is clearly arbitrary and illegal.
4.1 Further, the applicant avers that as per the revised CAS, the performance evaluation/ score card been devised specifically for scientist primarily engaged in research, research & teaching and research & extension, etc. and the ASRB is required to consider the assessment of the Senior Scientist as per application format and the proof submitted therein to assess the various specialized activities undertaken by the scientist in totality. In the instant case the entire matter was examined by the Director of his centre with due certificate wherein applicant was after assessment getting minimum 75 marks required for placement in the next RGP/Promotion. Applicant pointed out in his representation that he should get minimum 86 marks out of 100, as per the activity wise assessment. After receiving the impugned order (Annexure A/1), 9 (OA No.290/00493/2013) applicant in his representation through proper channel he had categorically pointed out the different activities, and have assessed minimum 71 marks out of 80 marks allotted for assessment and in the interview, he expected to get 15 marks out of 20 marks. Even if he got 5 marks in the interview then too, he would qualify with minimum 75 marks out of 100 to meet the required criteria for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist. All these facts have not been considered by the respondents despite the fact that these activities as cited aforesaid have been reconsidered by the committee appointed by the Director of his unit, prior to forwarding the representation of the applicant. 4.2 The applicant also averred that the scientists namely Dr. Reena Mukherjee, Dr. Brata Mondal of IVRI Izatnagar and Dr. Daya Moy Mandal from Regional Centre CARI, under the discipline Veterinary Medicine appeared along with the applicant in the assessment on 04.09.2012, have been promoted to the post of Principal Scientist, but are not more meritorious than him. Rejecting the case of applicant for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is illegal and against the scheme of CAS, arbitrary and discriminatory. Such type of action of the respondents to the provision of law as well as violative of Articles 14 10 (OA No.290/00493/2013) and 16 of the constitution of India and deserve to be quashed and set aside.
5. As a counter, the respondents in their reply have averred that the contentions raised in Grounds of the OA are wholly misconceived, frivolous and untenable in the eyes of law. The Selection Committee very carefully examined and considered the case of promotion of the applicant, based on the criteria laid down in the revised CAS and after taking into account, the assessment period (13.2.2007 to 12.2.2010), AARs for the relevant period and his performance in the interview on 4.9.2012, awarded him 71 marks. Therefore, the contentions raised by the applicant in the grounds are wholly unfounded and are not supported by any law, hence denied. The applicant has not pointed out any breach and/or violation of any provision either of any rules and/or the criteria laid down in the revised CAS, and so the OA is liable to be dismissed out-rightly.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to ICAR letter dated 04.11.2011 (Annexure A/3) on the subject of Revised 11 (OA No.290/00493/2013) performance evaluation / Score card for promotions / upward movement of ARS Scientists under the revised Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) which effective from 01.01.2009. This revised scheme is meant to provide the Research Scientist of the respondent organisation a periodic assessment of their research and accordingly grant them advancement in their career. The advancement under this scheme in the form of RGP/ promotion is not linked with number of vacancies but is purely driven by the assessment of each scientist in the organisation. Thus, the objective of the scheme is to recognise the research work of each scientist and to provide him incentive in the form of higher RGP and promotion. However, it is the grievance of the applicant that vide impugned office order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A/1), the President of the ICAR Society accepted the recommendations of the ASRB and he has not been recommended by the Board.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant made a representation on 16.03.2013 (Annexure A/6) which was duly forwarded by his Director on 16/17.04.2013 (Annexure A/7). Vide his representation, the applicant made a humble request for reconsideration and re-evaluation of the promotion case for the period of assessment based on the fact that he has achieved as per his own 12 (OA No.290/00493/2013) evaluation between 71 marks out of 80 as against the bench mark of 75 out of 100. Applicant also reiterated that he had worked during this period of assessment (2007-2010) on six research projects including one externally funded, developed nine innovative technologies and four publications were reported in the International Journal of NAAS rating ranged 6.0 - 6.6/10. The details of all this work done was again annexed with the representation for re-assessment and promotion under the revised Career Advancement scheme. While forwarding his representation the Director of his centre mentioned that-
"The representation of Dr. Tuteja is forwarded for kind consideration of the Competent Authority at the ICAR H.Q. It is also to inform that the representation of Dr. Tuteja was scrutinized by a committee and observed that he has annexed some proofs in support of his technologies."
9. Concluding his submissions during hearing, learned counsel for the applicant, reiterated the prayer made in OA and the grounds for the relief. Applicant seeks relief of quashing the impugned order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) and impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) and directing the respondents to reconsider his case for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist on the following grounds-
i) Applicant fulfils the requirement of service of three years after the day he has got RGP of Rs.9000/- as Senior Scientist. 13 (OA No.290/00493/2013)
ii) The impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) by which his representation has been rejected is not a speaking order and gives no reasons for the applicant not being found fit to be recommended by the Board to the next higher grade of Principal Scientist.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the Tribunal does not have the authority to give directions for promotions. He also stated that the Court cannot examine the merits of the decision arrived at by the ASRB as nowhere allegation of mala fide has been raised in the pleadings. Moreover, the ASRB is a body of technical experts whose conclusion could not be reviewed by the Tribunal. Further, the applicant's assessment of his own expected marks is beyond the parameters of the judicial review by this Tribunal. He also stated that the matter was not one of promotion but only of Revised Performance Evaluation under the revised CAS. Countering this, the learned counsel for the applicant drew our attention to Annexure A/3 dated 04.11.2011 which goes under the title and subject "Revised performance evaluation/Score-card for promotions/ upward movement of ARS Scientists under the revised Career Advancement Scheme (CAS)- effective from 01.01.2009".
14 (OA No.290/00493/2013)
11. The whole case hinges on the two issues raised by the applicant and his counsel-
i) Whether the review of recommendations of the Selection Committee by re-assessment/ re-evaluation of research achievements of a ICAR scientist is available to them as per the revised CAS?
ii) Whether the impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) rejecting the applicant's representation being not a speaking order is tenable or not?
12. The respondents in the impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) have mentioned that-
"The matter has been examined in the Council and it has emerged that since there is no provision in the rules to review the recommendation of the Selection Committee of ASRB, it is not possible to accede to the request for review of promotion to the post of Principal Scientist. As per the revised Career Advancement Scheme effective from 01.01.2009, they are eligible for review of assessment after 2 years of the first evaluation."
However, on examination of revised CAS circulated vide ICAR circulars dated 06.03.2009 and Annexures A/3 dated 04.11.2011, there is no rule against the re-assessment/ re-evaluation of a scientist's research achievements by a Selection Committee constituted to give its recommendation. As per the circular ICAR No. 1(1)/2009-Per.IV, dated 12.10.2012, the Assessment Committees is as under- 15 (OA No.290/00493/2013) For assessment of Scientists for promotion from RGP of Rs. 6000 to Rs. 7000, Rs. 7000 to 8000 and Rs. 8000 to Rs. 9000 (to be undertaken at Institutes level); The composition of the Assessment Committee will be as follows:
1 Chairman to be nominated by the ASRB Chairman 2 Two experts to be nominated by DG, ICAR from Member outside the Institute but not necessarily Member from outside ICAR system 3 DDG concerned with the Institute or his nominee Member 4 Director of the Institute Member Note 1: The quorum of selection committee shall be four. The quorum of four should ensure that at least one member should be an outside expert.
For assessment of Scientists for promotions from RGP of Rs. 9000/- to Rs. 10000 (to be undertaken at ASRB's level). The composition of the Assessment Committee will be as follows:
1 Chairman/Member ASRB Chairman 2 DG, ICAR or his nominee Member 3 Three experts out of which at least one from ICAR Member Institute other than the Institute to which the concerned Sr. Scientist belong 4 Director of the concerned Institute Member Note II: In case of Career Advancement of the Scientist working at ICAR headquarters instead of Director of Institute, ADG of the concerned Division will function as a Member of the Selection committee.
Note III: The quorum for the meeting of Selection Committee shall be four, the quorum of four would ensure at least two outside experts in every meeting. As it is evident from the composition of Assessment Committee mentioned above the Director of the Institute plays an important role. The Evaluation Report of the applicant was initially approved and forwarded by the Director of his National Research Centre on Camel, Bikaner, and as per the ICAR circular dated 12.10.2012, he is also a member of the Assessment Committee. Subsequently, he also forwarded 16 (OA No.290/00493/2013) the representation of the applicant endorsing his research work and the technologies developed by him, for the re-assessment of research achievements. Under the circumstances we are of the opinion that the competent authority should have examined the representation of the applicant and should have got his research achievements re-assessed before taking a decision regarding the same.
13. In the light of the discussion held in the aforesaid paragraphs we are of the opinion that the respondent department has not followed the principles of fair play and justice in dealing with the grievance of the applicant. Thus, the OA is liable to be allowed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 08.02.2013 (Annexure A/1) and impugned letter dated 11/12.09.2013 (Annexure A/2) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the detailed representation of the applicant, dated 16.03.2013 (Annexure A/6) and get his research achievements re-assessed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Based on the re-assessment, a speaking order should be issued, informing the applicant about the outcome of the same. In case after re-assessment the applicant receives minimum cut off i.e. 75 marks out of 100, then he shall be promoted from the date when other 3 scientists from Veterinary Medicine discipline who were 17 (OA No.290/00493/2013) assessed with him on 04.09.2012, were promoted, with all consequential benefits.
14. With these directions, the OA is allowed, with no order as to costs.
(AMIT SAHAI) (RAMESHWAR VYAS) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) sv