Karnataka High Court
Dr D Narasimha Rao vs Union Of India on 27 November, 2013
Bench: Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar, K.N.Phaneendra
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN.M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
WRIT PETITION NO. 22212/2011 ( S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
DR D NARASIMHA RAO
AGE:66 YEARS,
S/O SRI VENKATESWARA RAO
DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND HEAD
DEPARTMENT OF MEAT, FISH & POULTRY
TECHNOLOGY(RETIRED) CENTRAL FOOD
TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CFTRI)
MYSORE R/AT NO.129, CFTRI LAYUOUT,BOGADI
2ND STAGE, MYSORE-570 026.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. : P A KULKARNI)
AND
1.UNION OF INDIA
BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN,
NEW MEHRAULI ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110016
-2-
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
ANUSANDHAN BHAWAN,
2, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI MARG,
NEW DELHI 110001
3.CHAIRMAN
DRECRUITMENT AND ASSESSMENT BOARD (RAB)
CSIR COMPLEX,
LIBTRARY ACVENUE, PUSA,
NEW DELHI-110012
4.DIRECTOR
CENTRAL FOOD TECHNOLOGICAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE(CFTRI)
MYSORE 570200
RESPONDENTS.
(BY SRI: ANANDA K FOR R2-R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 25.3.2011 PASSED BY CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANALORE BENCH,
BANGALORE IN O.A. NO.470/2008 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
This Writ Petition coming on for hearing this day,
MOHAN .M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J., made the following: -
-3-
ORDER
The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.470/08 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the possession of the respondent department in the matter of grant of permission to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner retired on 31-8-05 on attaining the age of superannuation. At that point of time he was working as Scientist Grande IV (5) in the respondent organisation and he was working as Deputy Director and Head of the Department of Meat Fish Poultry Technology. He became eligible for the next promotion in the grade of Scientist IV(6) on completion of 5 years in Grade IV(5) on 1-2-2004. The promotion to the higher grades are on the basis of Flexible Complementing System (FCS) ie. on promotion the post stands upgraded as personal to the Officer and on vacation of the post by him, the post would revert back to the grade to which it belonged initially. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was wrongly found unfit by the respondent -4- organization for promotion to Grade IV(6). Thus he approached the CAT in O.A.470/08 praying for promotion to the Grade IV(6) . The said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order.
3. The records reveal that the petitioner was considered for assessment promotion to Scientist IV(6) on 1-2-2004 but his name was not recommended. Again his case was considered during 2006 for the assessment year 2004-05 as on the due date ie. on 1-2-05. That time also his name was not recommended for promotion. In the meanwhile Rule 7.6.5 of CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 came to be amended with effect from 1-4-2007. To be eligible for assessment interview and to get recommended for promotion upto 31-3-2010 the Annual Confidential Report scores was the criterion. The eligible candidates are thereafter assessed on the basis of work report. Rule 7.2 of CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 was amended with effect from 20-3-2008. By the said amendment the assessment was to be done by a duly constituted Peer Committee which -5- takes into account the Annual Confidential Reports and the work report for the years covered under the residency period without holding any assessment interview.
4. Thus it is clear that the system of conducting assessment interview was dispensed with after 20-3-08. On the other hand the peer committee could take into account the Annual Confidential Reports and work reports. It is also made clear in the very amendment order dated 20-3-08 by which rule 7.2 was amended that, the amended rule 7.2. shall be implemented for all the cases of the assessment, now onwards (i.e. 20-03-08) coming before the Recruitment Assessment Board including the pending cases of earlier years under C.S.R.A.P. As aforementioned prior to 2008, promotion up to the level of Scientist Group IV (6) was by interview by the Assessment Committee of those candidates who were found eligible by the Internal Screening Committee. After amendment to Rule 7.2 by circular dated 20-3-2008, the RAB/Peer Committee considers the work report apart from Annual Confidential Reports. The said committee makes its recommendations based on the -6- evaluation of the work reports. Though seven other scientists were given promotion, the prayer of the petitioner for promotion to Grade IV (6) was not favourably considered on the ground that the work reports of the petitioner did not satisfy the Assessment Committee whereas the work reports of other 10 scientists were held to be good by the committee.
5. Since no interview has to be held by the Peer Committee subsequent to 20-3-2008, the eligible candidates were required to furnish work reports and on assessment of the work reports, the Assessment Committee recommends for promotion to the next higher grade. The Peer committee consists of highly qualified and eminent persons. The Peer Committee on assessing the work report of the petitioner found it unsatisfactory and consequently the case of the petitioner for promotion was not recommended. It is needless to observe that the petitioner did not achieve the standard set by the committee regarding the work reports. As such he was not recommended for promotion. -7-
6. At the cost of repetition we mention here itself that the internal screening committee recommendation is only regarding the eligibility for consideration for promotion (on the basis of A.C.R.S scores) and the Peer Committee makes its recommendation based on Assessment Committee Reports and work reports.
7. As could be seen from the order of the Tribunal (para
9) we find that the records of deliberations of the Assessment Committee and the Peer Committee were called for and perused by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the case of the petitioner was considered only on 30-8-2005, just a day prior to his superannuation and he was found 'unfit' for promotion. The petitioner has no grievance against this as he is aware that his ACR scores were less than the required 85%. However, on 30-3-2008 i.e. subsequent to the amendment of the rule for promotion to the level of Scientist IV (6), the promotions have to be made based on the amended rules. As aforementioned the Peer Committee takes into account Annual Confidential Reports and work reports for the years covered under the residency -8- period. The Peer Committee in its meeting held on 27-4-2008 has assessed the petitioner as 'not fit' for promotion as on the due date of assessment on 1-2-2005. Since the experts in the field have assessed the performance of the petitioner and have concluded that petitioner is not fit for promotion, the Tribunal rightly did not interfere with the said finding of fact arrived at by the experts in the field. In such matters the courts/Tribunals generally will not substitute their view acting as an appellate authority.
8. Hence we find that the order of the Tribunal is just and proper. No interference is called for and the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE SSY