Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Charles Ekka vs The Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 31 August, 2015
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Applicaton No.946/2012
Monday this the 31st day of August 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Charles Ekka,
Senior Administrative Officer,
Central Institute of Fisheries Technology,
Matsyapuri P.O., Cochin - 682 029. . . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.P.K.Madhusoodhanan)
Versus
1. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
represented by its Secretary, Krishi Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director General,
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Director in Charge,
Central Institute of Fisheries Technology,
Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Matsyapuri P.O., Cochin - 682 029.
4. The Director (Personnel),
The Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Bhavan, Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road,
New Delhi - 110 001.
5. Union of India
represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan,
Dr.Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
6. K.N.Choudhary,
S/o.B.N.Choudhary,
Working as Deputy Secretary,
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
Residing at B-17, Krishi Vihar,
Masjid Moth, New Delhi - 110 048.
7. V.K.Sharma,
S/o.late J.L.Sharma,
Working as Deputy Secretary,
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
Residing at B-82, Amar Colony,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi - 110 024.
8. V.D.Nanewadekar,
S/o.late D.T.Nanewadekar,
Working as Deputy Secretary,
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
Residing at Flat No.56, Shubham Apartments,
Indraprastha Extention, New Delhi - 110 092.
9. Smt.Raja Sethumadhavan,
W/o.A.Sethumadhavan,
Working as Deputy Secretary,
ICAR, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi.
Residing at Qr.No.880, Sector - 9,
R.K.Puram, New Delhi -110 021. . . . . Respondents
(By Advocates Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar [R1-4],
Mr.Anilkumar,Sr.PCGC [R5] & Mr.Shafik.M.A. [R6-9])
This application having been heard on 4th August 2015 this Tribunal
on 31st August 2015 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mrs.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant is a Master of Arts and has Post Graduate Diploma in Financial Management. He was directly recruited as Administrative Officer, a Group 'A' post, in scale Rs.2200-4000 in the Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore on the selection conducted by the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB), New Delhi. Thereafter vide order dated 30.10.1995 he was promoted as Senior Administrative Officer in scale Rs.3000-4500 and since 30.9.2010 he has been working as such in the Central Institute of Fisheries Technology at Kochi. His next promotion is to the combined cadre of Chief Administrative Officer/Deputy Secretary in the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and its constituent Institutes. The hierarchy and number of posts in the various Institutes under ICAR and at the ICAR Headquarters are as follows :
ICAR Institutes No. of ICAR Headquarters No. of
posts posts
1 Registrar 4 Director 4
2 Chief Administrative Officer 18 Deputy Secretary 12
3 Senior Administrative Officer 39 Under Secretary 23
4 Administrative Officer 95 Section Officer 95
5 Assistant Administrative Officer 384
6 Assistant 1354 Assistant 245
7 UD Clerk 676 UD Clerk 135
8 LD Clerk 676 LD Clerk 70
Total 3246 Total 574
The applicant learns that respondent has approved a policy decision for unification of cadre of Administrative Officers in ICAR starting from Deputy Secretary down the line. Respondent has also desired that a complete review of the cadre may be done within a period of one month so that each Institute has at least one Administrative Officer and promotions that are supposed to take place in future to fill the vacancies of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer etc. may be postponed till the review of the cadre is completed. Filling up of the vacancies by promotion by Departmental Promotion Committees may be conducted only after final structure was approved by the Agriculture Minister. Thereafter on approval of the recommendations of the Governing Body by the Agricultural Minister and President of the ICAR, the 1 st respondent ordered to merge the posts of Under Secretaries at ICAR Headquarters and Senior Administrative Officer at ICAR Institutes, Deputy Secretaries at ICAR Headquarters and Chief Administrative Officers at ICAR Institutes vide Annexure A-1 order dated 15.1.2003 in order to have mobility of officers from ICAR Headquarters to its institutes and vice versa to improve efficiency in the administration oriented towards better result. Revised Recruitment Rules were notified vide F.No.14(1)/2010-Estt.1 dated 19.8.2010 for the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer vide Annexure A-2. The applicant is one of the senior most Senior Administrative Officer under the ICAR and belongs to ST community. He is eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer on the next arising vacancy. Applicant submits that inspite of the clear provisions to consider all the constituents of ICAR as a single unit and parity in categorization of post, the group of staff working at ICAR Headquarters succeeded in persuading the higher-ups in ICAR, New Delhi due to their proximity that staff working at ICAR Headquarters and those working at ICAR Institutes belong to different category. But this was rejected by the Union Cabinet in its meeting held on 29.4.1997 which ordered merging of the cadres. But the decision of merger of cadres of Administration was taken in the year 2001 only from the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer to the level of Under Secretary/Senior Administrative Officer as partial implementation of the decision of the Union Cabinet and merger of posts down below have not been taken up and not implemented inspite of the policy decision taken by the respondents. Shri.V.K.Sharma and two others working as Under Secretary in ICAR Headquarters, New Delhi filed O.A.No.70/2011 before the Principal Bench, New Delhi praying to quash Annexure A-2 revised Recruitment Rules and to direct the respondents therein to amend the Recruitment Rules for the post of DS/CAO in ICAR and to provide separate quota for both the feeder channels in the ratio of 1:1 for Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers and further directed the respondents to hold fresh DPC in terms of the amended Recruitment Rules and grant promotion to them with effect from 19.8.2010. However, the said O.A was withdrawn by the applicants therein. The applicant in the O.A contends that on withdrawal they persuaded the respondents to amend the Recruitment Rules at Annexure A-2 by letter F.No.33-5/2011-Estt.-1 dated 28.9.2012 (Annexure A-5) by the 4th respondent. Though the applicant submitted his objections to Annexure A-5 through proper channel to the 2nd respondent by Annexure A-9 representation dated 5.10.2012, no reply has been received by him. Applicant submits that steps are being taken to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee and grant promotion to those in ICAR Headquarters though they are very much junior to the applicant in service and in the comparable grades/cadre of DS/CAO in the ICAR. The applicant further submits that he and the Under Secretary in ICAR Headquarters are having same duties and responsibilities in the very same scale of pay and grade pay and their conditions of service and educational qualifications are also the same. Therefore he contends that for the purpose of promotion, there cannot be a further classification with in a class. He submits that more than 12 Senior Administrative Officers in various institutes of the ICAR are adversely affected by the issuance of Annexure A-5. The amendment for promotion to the posts of DS/CAO alone has been effected while in all other posts no such amendment was resorted to. The ratio and quota of post prescribed for promotion to Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer in Annexure A-5 is prima facie illegal and unjust. For promotion, vacancies are to be considered and not posts and only for SC/ST quota posts are to be considered, as held by the Apex Court. Pursuant to issuance of Annexure A-5 hasty steps are now being taken by the respondents to grant promotions as Deputy Secretary to the juniors of the applicant who are working as Under Secretary in ICAR Headquarters. Therefore, the applicant has filed this O.A seeking the following reliefs :
1. Set aside Annexure A-5.
2. Declare that Annexure A-5 is erroneous, tainted with malice in law and malafides, highly arbitrary, unreasonable, without authority and power and unconstitutional, amounts to colourable exercise of power by the 4th respondent, ultravires and therefore bad in law.
3. Issue necessary directions to the respondents to consider the Senior Administrative Officers in accordance with law for promotions to the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer before considering juniors in the posts of Under Secretary in the ICAR Headquarters and grant promotions as per law untramelled by Annexure A-5.
4. Issue necessary directions to the respondents not to consider juniors of the applicant in preference to him denying the applicant his fundamental right to be considered for promotion to the posts of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer.
5. Award costs of these proceedings.
6. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.
2. Respondents in their reply submit that the applicant has presented distorted facts regarding unification of the Headquarters cadre posts and the Institute Cadre posts of ICAR. It is submitted that during 4th Central Pay Commission when Assistants/P.As of Central Secretariat were given a higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, the same was also extended to the Assistants/P.As of ICAR Headquarters through a Cabinet decision due to its historical parity with the Central Secretariat. Subsequently with the approval of Hon'ble Agriculture Minister and President, ICAR it was decided that pending unification of the various administrative cadre posts, the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 may also be extended to the Assistants/P.As of ICAR Institutes with prospective effect. The proposal for the said unification was further examined in the ICAR through a High Level Committee and it was finally decided as per Annexure A-1 that the cadre of Under Secretaries of ICAR Headquarters and the cadre of Senior Administrative Officers of ICAR Institutes would stand merged with effect from 14.1.2003 for the purpose of mobility only. The said merger did not in any way change other characteristics and the manner of promotions, seniority in the respective feeder channels and their individual eligibility and other necessary qualifying features. During the 3 rd Central Pay Commission, 4 posts of Deputy Secretary at the ICAR Headquarters and one post of Joint Director (Admn.) IARI were given higher pay scale of Rs.1500-2000 whereas the Institute based posts of Chief Administrative Officer were in the lower pay scale of Rs.1300-1700/-. The feeder grade post for Chief Administrative Officer was Senior Administrative Officer with 5 years service. The Under Secretaries of ICAR Headquarters were in the pay scale of Rs.1200-1600 whereas the Senior Administrative Officers of ICAR Institutes were in the lower pay scale of Rs.1100-1600/-. That time, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Secretary provided that the Chief Administrative Officers and Under Secretaries with 5 years of services and the Senior Administrative Officers with 7 years of service were eligible for promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary. This clearly shows that in the past, the Under Secretaries had parity only with the Chief Administrative Officers and they certainly had an edge over the Senior Administrative Officers who required more number of years of service to be eligible for promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary at the ICAR Headquarters. Subsequently the pay scales of CAO and three other categories of posts of ICAR Headquarters were upgraded to the level of Deputy Secretary in 1997. Hence the Recruitment Rules for the posts of CAO were also revised in 1999. Since the pay scales for both the Under Secretary and Senior Administrative Officer were brought at par this time, the Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers were eligible for promotion to the grade of CAO.
3. Thus the merger of Deputy Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer had actually been effected from 1999 itself through the Recruitment Rules when the pay scale of Chief Administrative Officers was brought at par with that of Deputy Secretary. Thus, the posts of Deputy Secretary and CAO were already merged in 1999 well before issuing Annexure A-1. Annexure A-1 order of merger had not brought anything new except for the provision of mobility of Under Secretaries/Deputy Secretaries from ICAR Headquarters to Institutes and Senior Administrative Officers/CAOs from Institutes to ICAR Headquarters. Two categories of posts can be said to have been merged only if these posts have a common feeder grade posts. The Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers have different feeder grade posts. The Section Officers with 8 years services were eligible for promotion to the post of Under Secretary whereas the Administrative Officers with 5 years of service were/are eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Officer. Thus the posts of Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers have never been merged except for the purpose of mobility.
4. The actual merger of Headquarters and Institutes could be assumed only from the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer and above and not from Assistants/P.As to Under Secretaries/Senior Administrative Officers even if the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was extended to the Institute based Assistants/P.As with effect from 16.6.1997.
5. As regards promotion of the applicant to the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer it is undisputed that since he had been holding the post of Senior A.O since 1995, he stood senior to many of his fellow Sr.A.Os and was thus eligible for promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer after completion of the required number of years of service in the grade of Senior Administrative Officer. In fact, his case for promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer was considered by the DPC at its meeting held in the year 2010. However, on the basis of his overall performance and ACR records, the DPC did not find him fit for promotion. Certain adverse entries and consistently low gradings were recorded in the ACRs of the applicant for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 only due to which the applicant has been repeatedly superseded. He was thus superseded by many of his junior Senior Administrative Officers. Had he been recommended for promotion by the DPC, he would have got promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer in 2010 itself. The applicant is only trying to find fault with the amended Recruitment Rules in order to hide his own failure and non performance.
6. It is submitted by the respondents that Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers are two distinct and separate cadre posts. The Under Secretaries belong to Headquarters cadre and the Section Officers with 6 years of service form its feeder grade whereas the Sr. A.Os are Institute based cadre and A.Os with 5 years of service form its feeder grade.
7. As per Annexure A-7 DOPT OM where there are two or more feeder grades a separate percentage for promotion may be prescribed to each feeder grade. These orders even go the extent of laying down that in case this quota has not already been prescribed, the Departments may do so now in consultation with the UPSC. ICAR has already accepted and endorsed the DOPT guidelines way back in 1989. However, the Council somehow could not implement the provision of quota earlier. It is in this background that the ICAR had realized the necessity of amending Recruitment Rules by incorporating the provision of quota for both Under Secretaries and Senior A.Os in the Recruitment Rules for Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers. Annexure A-8 clause laying down that in cases where quota for feeder grades cannot be prescribed due to small cadre, which is being relied upon by the applicant, is not attracted in the instant case. A cadre of 30 consisting of 18 Chief Administrative Officers and 12 Deputy Secretaries is not a small cadre. The Headquarters of ICAR has only two sets of Officers, one belonging to Headquarters cadres and the other belonging to the combined cadre of Administrative Officer. Since the Under Secretary (Admn.) happened to be in charge of the concerned Establishment Section of ICAR Headquarters dealing with the case, it was quite reasonable that the proposal for introduction of quota system had been initiated by his Section. The Under Secretary (Admn.) belongs to Headquarters cadre but his immediate superior Director (Admn.) happened to be from the combine cadre of A.Os. If the Under Secretary (Admn.) was allegedly conscious of his promotional grievance then the Director (Admn.) was also equally conscious of the grievance of the S.A.Os cadre. It is for this reason that the matter was brought before the All India Level forum of Staff Representatives viz. the CJSC for resolution of dispute. The then Special Secretary, DARE and Secretary, ICAR were very much aware of the stakes involved in the matter. That is why he consciously handed over the relevant file to a neutral officer from the DARE under the Ministry of Agriculture, viz. Shri.A.Prabhakaran, now Director. Since the decision on the amendment in the Recruitment Rules for Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer introducing separate quota for promotion of Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers might have had wider implications, the then Secretary, ICAR discussed the issue in a meeting exclusively attended by the Director General, ICAR, Chairman, ASRB, Secretary, ICAR and the Deputy Secretary, DARE. The officers from ICAR Headquarters cadre and Institute cadre were not involved in the meeting consciously, so that an impartial decision could be taken. On the basis of discussions held in that meeting, it was finally decided to bring amendment in the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer in the light of DOPT's guidelines that prescribe introduction of a separate quota/percentage for promotion to a post where feeder grade posts were in two different grades from a prospective effect. It is submitted that prescribing quota for two different cadres of Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers for promotion to the combined cadre of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer cannot be interpreted to mean that the grade of Deputy Secretary and Chief Administrative Officers have been separated. Only the quota has now been introduced which was non existent earlier. It is submitted that Annexure A-5 Statutory Rules have been issued with the prior approval of the President, ICAR Society and the Agriculture Minister, who is competent to approve the proceedings of meeting of the Governing Body of ICAR Society. It is submitted that the Government Body of ICAR is fully empowered to amend the Recruitment Rules in the light of Government of India (DOPT's) guidelines. The aforesaid amendments in the Recruitment Rules have been carried out also as a measure of settlement of dispute outside the Court and to avoid the likely complications/reversions etc. Proposal for amendments in the Recruitment Rules was placed before the Governing Body and the Governing Body has ratified it in its 225 th meeting held on 6.11.2012. It is pointed out that in a similar situation the ICAR has already brought about the framing of amendments in Recruitment Rules for various posts with the approval of the President, ICAR and the Agriculture Minister and has got it ratified by the Governing Body subsequently. Hence the allegations levelled by the applicant are baseless.
8. Since the ICAR has 30 sanctioned posts of Deputy Secretary/ Chief Administrative Officer it is quite justified in terms of paragraph 2.2.1 of the DOPT guidelines 11.11.2010 that separate and appropriate quotas for Sr.AOs and Under Secretaries is fixed in the reasonable ratio of 3:2 depending on the sanctioned strength of Sr.AOs (39) and Under Secretaries (23). The ICAR has not fixed it in the ratio of 1:1 seeking equal representations for Under Secretaries and Sr.AOs as demanded by the Under Secretaries of ICAR Headquarters and also the Council has not restored the desired quota of 12 for Under Secretaries by reverting Sr.AOs. This clearly shows that the ICAR has not shown any favour to the Under Secretaries of ICAR Headquarters or yielded to the demand of Under Secretaries for equal representation and retrospective application of quota provision. In fact the amended Recruitment Rules are more in favour of the Sr.AOs than the Under Secretaries as more representation has been given to the Sr.AOs.
9. Additional respondent Nos.6-9 in their reply submits that it is undisputable that the ICAR Headquarters and ICAR Research Institutes are separate entities resultantly the posts of Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers fall in entirely two different cadres even though they got promotion to the combined cadre of Deputy Secretary/ Chief Administrative Officer in ICAR. It is a settled position that even though the cadres of Deputy Secretaries and Chief Administrative Officers form part of the combined cadre of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers in ICAR, their feeder grade posts of Headquarters based Under Secretaries and Institute based Senior Administrative Officers will continue to maintain their distinctive features. They submit that being senior does not bestow upon the applicant the right of promotion unless he has been recommended fit for promotion by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the rules. In the past due to adverse ACRs he was found unfit for promotion by the DPC. Therefore due to his non performance he has not secured promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer. They submit that the question of integration/merger of two cadres does not arise as all the posts which are borne on the strength of ICAR Headquarters are totally distinct and form separate cadres and that the cadres of Institute based posts of Senior Administrative Officers and Headquarters based posts of Under Secretaries have never been merged for the purpose of promotions to the combined cadre of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers. The integration/merger, if any, was only for the purpose of mobility of officers in the system for functional autonomy and not for the purposes of promotions etc. It is stated that the Governing Body of ICAR is fully competent to amend the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers in the light of DOPT's guidelines as the service and financial rules framed by the Government of India from time to time shall apply mutatis mutandis to the employees of ICAR. They further state that the O.A filed by them challenging the Recruitment Rules for the posts of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers notified by ICAR on 19.8.2010 and the promotions made thereon before the Principal Bench, New Delhi were absolutely in conformity with the guidelines issued by the DOPT which clearly lay down that where promotion to a post is from two or more feeder grades, a separate quota may be prescribed for each feeder grade. Therefore the contention of the applicant in the O.A that with the patronage of the then Under Secretary (Admn.), ICAR Headquarters they had prevailed upon the authorities to bring out an amendments in the Recruitment Rules for Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers is baseless and devoid of merit. With a view to resolving the dispute amicably the ICAR took an initiative on its own to bring amendments in the Recruitment Rules providing for separate quota for each feeder grade ie. Deputy Secretaries and Chief Administrative Officers and also offered to consider them for promotions to the posts of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers against some vacancies. It was only thereafter, at the instance of the ICAR that the O.A was withdrawn. With regard to the contention of the applicant against fast promotions they points out to the tabulated statement at Para 2 of the O.A which makes it clear that due to large number of posts of Senior Administrative Officers available for promotion of Administrative Officers, the applicant who was recruited as Administrative Officer got promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Officer in 5 years whereas the additional respondents had to wait 17 years to get promotion from the grade of Section Officer to the grade of Under Secretaries. The foremost reason for such acute stagnation is that the ICAR did not follow the DOPT's guidelines for fixing quota in the feeder cadre of Under Secretaries/Senior Administrative Officers for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers and as a result the Senior Administrative Officers were in an advantageous position by virtue of their salary, fast promotions to the posts of Senior Administrative Officers compared to the Under Secretaries at the ICAR Headquarters.
10. Heard the counsel for the applicant and respondents and perused the written submissions made. The issue to be considered is whether Annexure A-5 amendment to Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer of ICAR is arbitrary, unconstitutional and without authority and power. The second issue is to consider Senior Administrative Officers for promotion to the post of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers before considering juniors in the post of Under Secretaries in ICAR Headquarters and not to consider juniors in preference to the applicant.
11. The applicant's claim of seniority is not disputed by the respondents. The applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer in the DPC meeting of 2010. However, the applicant did not cross the fitness test on the basis of overall performance and ACR records and the DPC did not find him fit for promotion. Adverse entries and low gradings for the year 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the ACR led to supercession of the applicant by many junior Senior Administrative Officers of his cadre. On 28.5.2015 this Tribunal in O.A.No.763/2012 has directed the respondents to consider Annexure A-3, Annexure A-10 and Annexure A-11 representations of this applicant and pass a speaking order considering all the points raised by the applicant in the representations within a period of three months. In the event of any of the adverse remarks being expunged or modified the applicant's case for MACP/promotion shall be re-considered. Hence the relief for the second issue has been provided in O.A.No.763/2012 and the applicant will be considered for promotion subject to the outcome of the relief granted in the O.A.
12. Respondents admit that Under Secretaries and Senior Administrative Officers are two distinct and separate cadre posts and no merger of the posts at ICAR Headquarters and Institutes at this level is effected. The respondents also does not dispute the eligibility of the applicant's promotion to Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officers as per length of service as he has been Senior Administrative Officer since 1995 and was senior to many fellow Senior Administrative Officers as cited in supra above. The nodal ministry for personnel matters, the Department of Personnel and Training has laid down that where there are two or more feeder grades, a separate percentage for promotion be prescribed for each feeder grade. ICAR has therefore now provided for quota for the feeder cadre of Under Secretary and Senior Administrative Officer in the Recruitment Rules. The opening para of Annexure A-5 amendment to Recruitment Rules for the post of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers also states this citing the Department of Personnel and Training guidelines dated 10.9.1985 and 12.12.1988. The DOPT guidelines prescribe that when promotions to a higher grade are made from more than one grade, the eligible persons shall be arranged in separate lists in the order of their relative seniority in their respective feeder cadres. Thereafter, the DPC will select persons for promotion from each list upto the prescribed quota. Seniority in the combined cadre will be with reference to the date of promotion in the feeder cadre. In pursuance of above DOPT directions the ICAR has taken into account the ratio between the number of sanctioned posts of Senior Administrative Officers ie. 39 and the number of sanctioned posts of Under Secretary ie. 23 and the number of combined sanctioned strength of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer ie. 30 and set a ratio of 3:2 between Senior Administrative Officers and Under Secretaries. This ratio has been correctly fixed. Thus of the 30 posts of Deputy Secretaries/Chief Administrative Officers, 18 posts can be filled from Senior Administrative Officer cadre and 12 posts from Under Secretary cadre. Since the strength of Senior Administrative Officer at the time of amendment was more ie. 22 posts as against 18 proposed in the amendment in the ratio of 3:2 and the shortfall in Under Secretary cadre was 4 posts, subsequent promotions in the cadre of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer will be made in a manner so that the respective strength of 18:12 in the Deputy Secretary/CAO cadre, between Senior Administrative Officers and Under Secretaries will be restored. This is a classification based on reason and not on individual/institutional discretion. It is also not founded on prejudice or preference. The prescription of ratio is made in order to ensure that a fair mix of the feeder cadre is made in the promotion cadre and is therefore not arbitrary. Thus there is a discernible principle emerging from the impugned Annexure A-5 document and it satisfies the test of reasonableness. The respondents had also taken adequate precautions to get the Recruitment Rules drafted by a third party so that the decision so arrived at will be impartial. The impugned order thus following the guidelines of the nodal ministry in the Government of India dealing with personnel matters/guidelines, fixed separate quota for Senior Administrative Officers and Under Secretaries in the ratio of 3:2 bearing in mind the ratio of sanctioned strength of Under Secretary and Senior Administrative Officer in the feeder grade. The impugned Annexure A-5 order restored the balance between the two grades of Senior Administrative Officers and Under Secretaries in the higher promotional grade of Deputy Secretary/Chief Administrative Officer in the ratio of posts in the feeder grade. The merger of the cadres at the Headquarters and field was done to provide mobility of officers from ICAR Headquarters to its Institutes and vice versa. The provisions of separate quota for each feeder grade, where promotion to a higher post is from two feeder grades, is also appropriately proposed as per DOPT guidelines. Thus the O.A devoid of merits is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 31st day of August 2015)
P.GOPINATH JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp