Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Jagadeesh A vs The Secretary Ministry Of Electronics ... on 20 December, 2022
1
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ernakulam Bench
O.A No.180/00675/2018
Tuesday, this the 20th day of December, 2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member
Jagadeesh A, [Scientist C, ERTL (S), (Electronics Regional
Test Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram],
S/o. K. Ananda Rajan, residing at N.N.R.A - C 29,
'Avitom' Mulluvila, Kazhakuttom P O,
Pin - 695 582 - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Suresh Babu)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary to
Government, Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, New Delhi - 110 003.
2. Director General, STQC (Standard Testing Quality
Certification), Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology, [Miety], Electronics Nikethan,
6 CGO Complex, New Delhi,
Pin - 110 003.
3. The Director, ERTL(S), [Electronics Regional Test-
Laboratory (South)], Sreekariyam - Akkulam Road,
Thiruvananthapuram, Pin - 695 017. - Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sreenath S, ACGSC)
The O.A having been heard on 14.12.2022, this Tribunal on
20.12.2022 delivered the following order:
2
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member The applicant was a Scientist under the third respondent which is an office under first and second respondents, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to the Union of India. He was promoted as Scientist C in the year 2009. According to the applicant, he is entitled to be promoted as Scientist D, under the Modified Flexible Complementary Scheme (MFCS herein after), a copy of which is produced as Annexure A4, when the vacancy arose in the year 2014. However no interview was conducted during that period and ultimately the interview for the post of Scientist Group D was held in 2018. According to the applicant, however, he got information that interview for promotion to the post of Scientist D was held on 05.06.2018. The applicant was not only not invited, but his juniors were called for the interview. Annexure A1 representation was submitted to the Director General seeking reasons as to why he was not called for the interview. It was alleged by him that he was not called for the interview since he had obtained only second class in M.Sc. Physics. According to the applicant, as per Annexure A2 relevant Recruitment Rules No. GSR 1323-E dated 16.10.2017, direct recruitment to the post of Scientist B to E is meant for applicants holding B.Tech or the M.Sc Degree with 60% marks. This qualification was not applicable in the case of promotion. Hence, the applicant was illegally 3 and arbitrarily denied his right to be called for the interview. Claiming that the applicant was eligible to be called for the interview for promotion to group D under the MFCS Scheme and alleging that the action of the respondents denying the applicant the chance to attend the interview for getting promotion to the above post, was malafide, arbitrary and discriminatory, the O.A has been filed. The relief sought by the applicant in the O.A was to declare the action of the respondents whereby they denied chance for interview held on 05.06.2018 to the applicant for promotion to the post of Scientist D as illegal, arbitrary and malafide and without observing the principles of natural justice. Another prayer sought was to direct the respondents to take necessary steps to grant in-situ promotion to the applicant under the provisions of Annexure A4 MFCS, to the post Scientist D along with those who were called for the interview. He also sought for a direction to the respondents to grant promotion with effect from 2014 with arrears of salary and all other consequential benefits.
2 The respondents appeared and filed a detailed reply statement denying the various allegations. It was stated that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology vide their OM dated 19.06.2016 produced as Annexure R3(a) had notified the Personnel Policy for Group A Officers under the Ministry and its Organisations. It was applicable to 4 those officers initially appointed on Group A post as well as those officers initially appointed below Group A post.
3 Annexure R3(b) is the Personnel Policy and Practices for below Group A Officers and Staff of the Department of Electronics and Information Technology and its Unit Organisations. According to the respondents, as per the Recruitment Rules for Group A Officers and below Group A Officers, required prescribed educational qualification was M.Sc with first class or division or atleast 60% of marks in aggregate. The Personnel Policy and Practices for below Group A Officers and Staff evidenced by Annexure R3(b) also provide for appointment of Officers and Staff to the post for which they become eligible as per the prescribed norms, on acquiring higher qualifications with requisite marks, while in service. The applicant was initially appointed as Scientific Assistant A. By later promotions, he was ultimately promoted as Scientist C in 2009 which was the highest permissible position under the below Group B Personnel Policy. Hence, the applicant was governed by the below Group A Personnel Policy of Ministry, issued in the year 1983. The applicant possessed M.Sc Physics qualification with second class. Since he did not possess the requisite percentage of atleast 60% marks required for further promotion, he was not entitled for further promotion beyond Scientist C under the below 5 Group A policy. The promotion process in respect of Officers who had completed residency as on 1.1.2014, was undertaken in 2018, belatedly, due to various administrative reasons. All the officers who had completed the residency period as on 1.1.2014 with requisite educational qualifications were considered. Since, applicant had scored less than 60% marks in M.Sc (Physics), which is the pre-requisite for making candidate eligible, besides the period of residency, the applicant was screened out. It was also stated that applicant was considered for promotion to the next higher grade of Scientist D on 29.4.2019 prior to his retirement on 30.4.2019 by virtue of the interim order of this Tribunal dated 11.4.2019.
4 Based on the above pleadings, both sides were heard. Examined the records.
5 The first contention advanced by the applicant was that he was entitled to be called for the interview which ought to have been held in the year 2014. However, it was conducted belatedly in the year 2018. According to the applicant, not only that he was entitled to be called for the interview, but he was entitled for promotion with effect from 2014. To supplement this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central 6 Administrative Tribunal in the case of Dr.A.Duraisamy v. Ministry of Envirornment and Forests in O.A No.1926 of 2019, a copy of which was produced as Annexure A-9. He further relied on the decision reported in Dr.Assarul Hak v Union of India in O.A No.675/2018. In the former decision, the question that arose was regarding the uniformity in application of minimum residency period in all grades. That has no application to the facts of the case. In the latter decision, the applicants therein contended that their promotion was highly belatedly conducted and hence they were entitled for ante-dating in-situ promotions under the MFCS to the next grade of the applicants on their due date of respective eligibility, considering their residency period of services in the respective post. In the case at hand, essentially, the question of the eligibility of the applicant itself on other grounds is highly disputed. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, only if the applicant is proved to be qualified, the question of ante-dating the promotion from 2018 to 2014, if at all granted can be considered. We are in agreement with the above contention since essentially, the qualification of the applicant to be promoted to Group A post is in dispute.
6 There is no dispute that the qualification fixed for direct recruitment to the post of Scientist B to F is B.Tech or M.Sc with 60% marks. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant did not possess M.Sc 7 degree with 60% marks. Basic contention of the applicant was that this qualification applies only in the case of direct recruitment and not for promotion to a post considered under the MFCS. Annexure R3(b) is the Office Memorandum dated 18.7.1983 which is the Personnel Policy and Practices for Scientific and Technical Officers and Staff below Group A level, which is the provision applicable in the case of the applicant. Page 17 of Annexure R3(b), refers to the ceiling up to which a Scientific Technical Assistant and Scientific Officer recruited initially with the qualification in M.Sc/B.Sc/Diploma in Engineering can be considered for promotion, which will be the Grade of Scientist/Engineer C. For promotion beyond Scientist C, the Officer must fulfill the basic educational qualification for those grades. It clearly indicates that, for promotion to the Grade D, the applicant who seeks promotion, must have possessed the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment to Group D post, which is B Tech or M.Sc with 60% marks. Evidently, the applicant who has not obtained 60% marks in M.Sc is not entitled for promotion. 7 At the time of hearing, the learned ACGSC placed before us a notification of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technoloty dated 4.4.2019, by which, the 60% mark limit prescribed as above earlier was removed. However, it is pertinent to note that this Notification came into effect only from the date of notification, which was apparently 8 4.4.2019. This cannot be extended in the case of interview held prior to that and the applicant who had retired on 30.4.2019. Evidently, as on the date of calling for the interview, the Rule prescribed 60% marks in M.Sc. Hence, the applicant was not entitled to be called for interview and he was rightly screened out from the interview. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant per contra is liable to be rejected. 8 Pursuant to the direction of this Tribunal, the applicant was directed to be called for interview, subject to his eligibility being decided by this Tribunal after detailed hearing. The report of the interview conducted by the Assessment Board has been placed on record by the respondents, in objection to M.A 514/20. It was recorded in paragraph 4 that the applicant was found unfit for promotion to Scientist D. It was stated that the Assessment Board has considered the case of the applicant under the Personnel Policy with due emphasis on specific content of work justifying merits for consideration. The Assessment Board obserbved that the specific content of such work done by the applicant was that his understanding and technical knowledge in his work area was not found suitable/adequate for promotion to the next higher grade, He was found unfit for promotion to the next grade.
9. By virtue of the interim order, one of the relief sought by the 9 applicant to permit him to appear for the interview stands fullfilled. Essentially, the process of promotion has two parts; it includes an assessment by the Board. Since the applicant, failed in the assessment and, was found to be unfit, no relief can be granted to the applicant even if ultimately it is found that he is eligible to participate in the Interview.
10. In the light of the above facts, the applicant is not entitled for any reliefs. The Original Application is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the O.A fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(K.V. Eapen) (Justice Sunil Thomas)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
sv
10
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- Letter dated 18.06.2018 by the applicant to Director General, STQC, New Delhi.
Annexure A2- Recruitment Rules, 2017, vide GSR 1323 (E) dated 16.10.2017 Notification issued by the Ministry of Electronics & I.T, UoI. Annexure A3- Recruitment Rules, 2017, Vide GSR 1443 (E) dated 20- 11-2017-Notification Issued by Ministry of Electronics & I.T, UOI. Annexure A4- O M. No. 14017/37/2008 Estt(RR) dated 10-09-2010 reg. MFCS.
Annexure A5- Seniority List published by STQC.
Annexure A6- Letter by the Applicant dated 5-3-2018 to the Director ERTL(S), Tvm.
Annexure A7- Letter by the Applicant dated 5-3-2018 to the Director General, STQC, New Delhi.
Annexure A8- OM regarding DoPT order 2013 regarding qualification and timely promotion under MFCS.
Annexure A9- Judgment in O.A 1926/2013 of the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
Annexure A10- Reply under R.I Act dated 04.11.2019. Annexure A11- Reply under R.I. Act dated 16.12.2019. Annexure A12- Reply under R.I Act dated 24.02.2020. Annexure R3(a)- True copy of office memorandum dated 19.09.2016 of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, New Delhi.
Annexure R3(b)- True copy of office memorandum dated 18.07.1983 of the Government of India, Department of Electronics, New Delhi.
Annexure R3(c)- True copy of attendance sheet dated 29.04.2019.
...