Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Dr K V Harish Prashanth vs M/O Science And Technology on 3 June, 2025
1 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00447/2022
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Dr. K.V.Harish Prashanth,
S/o Prof.K.M.Veerappa,
Aged about 48 years,
Working as a Senior Scientist,
Department of Biochemistry,
CSIR, Central Food Technological
Research Institute,
Mysore-570020. ....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri A.Vishwanath Bhat)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Ministry of Science & Technology,
Technology Bhavan, New Mehrauli Road,
Block C, Qutab Institutional Area,
New Delhi-110016.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
2025.06.11
SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00'
2 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Director General,
Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR),
Anusandhan Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg,
Sansad Marg Area,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director,
CSIR-Central Food Technological
Research Institute,
Mysore-570020. ...Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(1) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or writ to quash the following Orders:
(a) O.M.No.FT-23 (PMS-Rprsntn)/E II/2013-14 dated 17.06.2016 issued by the third respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A4;
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 3 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(b) O.M.No.FT-23(PMS-Rprsntn)/E II/2018-19 dated 20.02.2019 issued by the third respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A10;
(c) O.M. No.FT-Misc/2021/11 dated 25.08.2021 issued by the third respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A18."
2. The facts in brief are that the applicant was promoted to the post of Scientist on 17.12.2012 after having appointed as Junior Scientist in CSRI-CFTRI, Mysore on 17.12.2009. The applicant was further promoted as Senior Scientist on 17.12.2017. Entries made in the Performance Mapping of Scientist (PMS) for the reporting year 2013-14 was communicated to him vide Office Memoradum dated 26.02.2015, informing him that he can make a representation against the entries and the final grading given in the report, wherein, the final score of the individual was shown as 0.8 and the grade score was indicated as 75. Pursuant to which the applicant submitted a representation dated 12.03.2015 before the 3rd Respondent and the same was rejected vide endorsement dated 17.06.2016. Subsequently on 04.09.2014, CSRAP Rules, 2001 S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 4 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH came to be issued. The 3rd Respondent issued an Office Memorandum dated 22.11.2018 with regard to the due date of assessment for promotion. Thereafter, the 3rd Respondent approved the list of Junior Scientists upto Principal Scientists, who have completed the residency period and were eligible for assessment as recommended by the Internal Screening Committee for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Again the applicant submitted a representation dated 11.02.2019 to the Liason Officer, against the PMS Report of the year 2013-14, which came to be disposed of directing 3rd Respondent to review and re-evaluate the PMS grading vide order dated 28.02.2019. No response being found, the applicant submitted a representation to the Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities on 06.08.2019. After hearing the parties, the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities passed an order dated 12.10.2020 recommending the case for re-examination by the respondents. On re-examination and re-evaluation of PMS of the applicant, the 3rd Respondent issued an Office Memorandum dated 25.08.2021 rejecting the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 5 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH request of the applicant for awarding higher grading for the reporting year 2013-14. Being aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. Learned Counsel Shri A.Vishwanath Bhat representing the applicant submitted that the Collegium after taking into consideration the self-appraisal report, has awarded individual score of 0.80. The Empowered Committee also awarded 0.80 marks with equivalent score of 84 marks. But the same has been struck down by the Director replacing the same by 75 marks. No signature of the Committee Members except the Director/Chairman has been found in the replacement made. Learned Counsel further submitted that no reasons have been assigned to justify the down gradation. The said manipulation has been done subsequent to awarding the score of 84 by the Committee. The representation submitted by the applicant has been rejected in a casual manner without assigning any reason. The rejection of the request of the applicant for restoring 84 marks/awarding higher marks has been rejected only to postpone the promotion of the applicant for one S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 6 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH year later, which has greatly prejudiced the interest of the applicant. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.
4. Learned Counsel Shri K.Ananda representing the respondents submitted that the OA is barred by limitation. No satisfactory reasons are assigned by the applicant for the inordinate delay in filing the OA. Learned Counsel further submitted that as per CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules, 2001, the applicant was promoted to the post of Scientist on 17.12.2012 based on the work report submitted by him and on the basis of performance/output for the said period under consideration on normal grounds without giving any special relevance to his disability. The applicant has been further promoted to the post of Senior Scientist with effect from 17.12.2017 after due consideration of his performance rendered during the said period. The Respondent No.2 introduced the new policy of Performance Mapping of Scientist by replacing earlier scheme of Annual Confidential Reports. As per the new Scheme there are three stages i.e., (1) Self-appraisal by the Scientists, (2) Evaluation by S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 7 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Collegium and (3) Evaluation by Empowered Committee. Accordingly, the self-appraisal of the Scientist has been evaluated by the Collegium, which is constituted by the Director of the Laboratories/Director General in case of CSIR Head Quarters as per Clause 4.2 of the PMS. Thereafter, the said assessment of the Collegium would be reviewed by the duly constituted Empowered Committee as per Clause 4.3 of the PMS. After evaluation of the self-appraisal of the applicant for the year 2013-14, the Collegium awarded 0.80 score which is equivalent to 70-84. Thereafter, the said assessment of the Collegium would be reviewed by the duly constituted Empowered Committee. The said Empowered Committee after due deliberation awarded 75 marks to the applicant and the same was signed by all the members of the Empowered Committee with the additional initials of the then Director of the 3rd Respondent Laboratory for the correction being made, in the capacity of Chairman of Empowered Committee. The change of the grading/marks is a collective decision of the Empowered Committee and not of any individual and as such question of any S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 8 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH manipulation does not arise. The respondents have no malafide intention to decrease or reduce the marks of the applicant. The representation submitted by the applicant to the grading of the PMS communicated was duly considered and the decision was communicated to the applicant vide OM dated 17.06.2016. There is no illegality or infirmity in awarding the marks by the Empowered committee. There is no provision to review the gradings/marks awarded by the Empowered Committee. The applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 17.06.2016 belatedly at this stage sans assigning sufficient reasons, the said delay aspect goes to the root of the matter. The applicant cannot take shelter of his disability as his appointment was not made under disability quota. Thus supporting the impugned orders, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.
5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are:
S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 9 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1) Whether the applicant is entitled for restoration of the score of 84, said to have been revised to the score of 75 by the Empowered Committee, in PMS report of the applicant?
2) Whether the impugned orders at Annexures A4, A10 and A18 are justifiable?
7. The entire case of the applicant is built on the premise that the score of 84 in the PMS report evaluated by the Empowered Committee has been replaced by score of 75 by the Director/Chairman of the Empowered Committee and no reasons are assigned for such down gradation. This approach of the applicant is wholly imaginary and not supported by any cogent material and the same deserves to be negated for the following reasons:
(i) It is not in dispute that the Collegium on analysing the self-appraisal of the applicant had assessed the individual score of the applicant as 0.80 equivalent to 70-84%. The said assessment of the Collegium has been reviewed/evaluated by the duly constituted Empowered Committee S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 10 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH assigning/confirming the final score of the individual as 0.80.
While assigning equivalent score out of corresponding range in evaluating the grade, 84 written in the box has been struck down replacing the same by 75 with the initials of the Director/Chairman, Empowered Committee, further signed by two Members of the evaluation Empowered Committee. It is thus clear that the final score of the individual 0.80 assigned by the Collegium remains the same in the evaluation report of the Empowered Committee, which is equivalent to 70-84. The replaced score of 75 certainly comes within the individual's score of 0.80 (70-84%).
(ii) The subject PMS report relates to the assessment year 2013-14. The said PMS report is signed by two Members of the Evaluation Empowered Committee along with the Director/Chairman, Empowered Committee. Merely for the reason that the final corresponding range of 84 in the grade is replaced by 75 with the initials of Chairman, it cannot be held that other Members of the Committee have not agreed to the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 11 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH same particularly in view of their signatures found below the said corrections, as such it can be termed as collective decision of the Empowered Committee and not of any individual in the absence of any disagreement note found therein. Immediately on communication of the said report, the applicant has submitted the representation dated 12.03.2015 pursuant to its communication dated 26.02.2015. The main ground urged in the representation is that the score of 0.80 has been downgraded to 75 by the Empowered Committee without assigning any reasons. No ground has been urged inasmuch as the said report not being signed by all the Members of the Committee subsequent to the correction made revising the score from 84 to 75. It is only an afterthought and hyper technical.
iii) Four years to be considered for assessment relates to the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. While reviewing report of the Collegium by the evaluating Empowered Committee, no assessment for the period, 2014-15 S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 12 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and 2015-16 was available. On prediction relating to future years no assessment could have been made for the subject year 2013-14. The argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant that for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 the average score in the grade is 84 and for the year 2012-13 being 89, had the score of 84 was not disturbed for 2013-14, the applicant was eligible with 84% of average score for 4 years and to deny the said promotion 84 has been replaced by 75, is only an imaginary and fictitious. Such an assumption is baseless. Moreover, no such data is placed on record. No pleadings are forthcoming to indicate any such denial to deprive the promotion to the applicant with any bias or vindictive mind that too at the stage of reporting of PMS for the year 2013-14.
(iv) The applicant has accepted the promotion to the post of Senior Scientist with effect from 17.12.2017 without any protest. After accepting the said promotion, subsequent to the rejection of his representation against the PMS report of the S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 13 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH evaluation Committee for the assessment year 2013-14 vide OM dated 17.06.2016, no efforts have been made to approach this Tribunal except making representations before the Liason Officer and the Commissioner for disability. It is well settled that submitting of representations before the authorities would not extend the period of limitation provided under the statute. No satisfactory reasons are assigned by the applicant for condoning the inordinate delay.
8. The competent authority having considered the representation of the applicant to up-grade to 1.0 (Equivalent % 90-99), has rightly rejected the same deciding to retain the grading awarded by the Evaluation Empowered Committee, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No fault can be found with the said decision.
9. At the cost of repetition it is observed that the delay in approaching this Tribunal would have been considered liberally S SARALADEVI S CAT, BANGALORE 2025.06.11 SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00' 14 OA 447/2022/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH provided the applicant has merit in the case, but the OA lacks merit as per the discussions made herein above.
10. For the reasons stated above, no interference is warranted by this Tribunal at this stage. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
11. MA No.406/2022 filed by the applicant for condonation of delay also stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
DR.SANJIV KUMAR (JUSTICE S.SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S SARALADEVI
S CAT, BANGALORE
2025.06.11
SARALADEVI 16:39:02
-12'00'