Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Prem Kumar Singh vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 19 April, 2023
we 1 OA 9/2023 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00009/2023 Dated Wednesday the 19" day of April Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM : HON'BLE MS. MANJULA DAS, Member (J) BON'BLE MR. T. JACOB, Member (A) Prem Kumar Singh, PGT (Com. Sc), Kendriya Vidyalaya, DGQA, Palavanthangal, Chennai 600061. ...Applicant (Party in person) Vs 1.The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Head Quarters, 19 Institutional Area, Shahid Jeetsingh Marg, New Delhi 110016. 2.Mrs. M. Rajeshwari, The then Deputy Commissioner, C/o. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Chennai Region, IIT Campus, Chennai 600036. 3.Mrs. T. Mirnalini, Ex-Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya DGQA, 3A, 2 Cross, MES Road, East Tambaram, Ganapathipuram, Chennai 600059. 4,Vice Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya DGQA, Palavanthangal, Chennai 600061. ... Respondents By Advocate Mr. M. Vaidyanathan ey sf u) 2 OA 9/2023 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Member(J)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs :-
"a. Quash/expugne the APAR 2019-20 grading done by incompetent 3 respondent, and quash the impugned order dt. 14.12.2021 (A21) of 1° respondent, for it being unreasoned, non-speaking, contrary of facts on official records and being against the law of natural justice.
b. Impose cost on 2" & 3 respondents, as mainly their deliberate wrongs have compelled the applicant to approach this Hon'ble Tirbunal repeatedly, leading to wastage of applicant's money & time, and botheration to this Hon'ble Tribunal too, which the applicant tried to avoid by consenting to be satisfied if average of his APARs of last 3 or 5 years is awarded for 2019-20 APAR, though it would be less that what the applicant actually deserves based on his enhanced performance and services in 2019-20.
c. Any other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in view of the facts and the circumstances."
2.' The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant are as under:-
i. The applicant is a Post Graduate teacher in subject Computer Science in Kendriya Vidyalaya DGQA, Palavanthangal Chennai since 2014, with OUTSTANDING APARs gradings (9+ out of 10) till 2017-2018. 3rd respondent as new Principal degraded applicant's APAR 2018-19 to 7.7 as if applicant's requests for improving student's toilets etc were not liked by her. The 2nd respondent upheld grading by the 3rd respondent however, the APAR was upgraded to outstanding slab by Mr. C. Mani, the then Deputy Commissioner KVS Chennai on applicant's representation.
ii, On 14.11.2019, applicant, being class teacher & member of Clean School Campaign, through the 3rd respondent, informed the then Commissioner KVS about refusal by 3rd respondent to improve student's toilets for which the 3 OA 9/2023 applicant got appreciation from the Commissioner office and 3rd and 2nd respondents had to improve toilets immediately. For this, the 3rd respondent threatened to spoil applicant's APAR 2019-20 citing her closeness with the 2nd respondert and harassed him in various ways viz., not clearing his official claims, not filling correct APAR points for his foreign deputation, EL. recovery etc. Since as per new rules dated 29.3.2019, the 4th respondent had to grade APARS 2019-20 onwards and 3rd respondent's retirement was due on 31.01.2020, hence peace-loving applicant, who was graded OUTSTANDING in 2019-20 inspection too, didn't write to higher authorities about 3rd respondent's threat.
iit. After retirement, 3rd respondent as per planned conspiracy wrote a letter dt. 14.2.2020 full of frivolous allegations to 2nd respondent against applicant. Without giving opportunity for applicant's reply, on 9.3.2020 2nd respondent tied for adverse feedback from applicant's colleagues in support of 3rd respondent's letter against applicant in the name of Inquiry through Principal KV Anna Nagar, but failed.
iv. Failing in inquiry, 2nd respondent, against the order dt. 29.3.2019 of Ist respondent, made retired 3rd respondent grade APARS 2019-20 on 24.9.2020, who, contrary to applicant's outstanding performance awarded him lowest points (4.93 out of 10) and outstanding grades given to applicant's colleague Mrs. C. Padma, PGT Economics whose performance and quantum of duties in 2019-20 4° OA 9/2023 were least, so that no one would object on arbitrary APAR writing by incompetent and retired 3rd respondent.
v. On 16.1.2021 applicant represented to quash arbitrary APAR grading by incompetent 3rd respondent and for unbiased re-grading, but 2nd responderit didn't do justice as apprehended, against which applicant made subsequent representations, which 2nd respondent didn't forward to the Ist respondent. Hence applicant filed OA 782/2021 wherein this Tribunal disposed of the OA at admission stage directing lst respondent vide it's order dt. 15.9.2021 to pass reasoned and speaking order within six weeks considering applicant's representation/grounds/law. Delayed order dt. 14.12.2021 of Ist respondent issued on 18/1/22 is contrary to the order of this Tribunal, being un-reasoned and non-speaking; it doesn't speak about KVS circular dated 29.3.2019 about change of APAR reporting authority, grounds, rules, and evidences submitted with applicant's representations and the O.A. 782/2021. Hence, he has filed this OA.
3. Heard Mr. Prem Kumar Singh, applicant appearing in person and Mr. S. Lokaiah representing Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the pleadings and materials placed on record.
4. We have noted that in so far as the self appraisal made by the applicant for the period 2019-2020 sent on 22.08.2020, the reporting officer had given her report on 24.09.2020. The point has been made by the applicant appearing in person that the time schedule for submitting the report is within one month from 4 5 OA 9/2023 her retirement. Hence there is a delay. To the query made to Mr. Singh, he also made appraisal on 22.08.2020 and how there is delay comes, he replied that because of Covid situation, all the persons in the offices were in their native places and after receiving the self appraisal format, he made the self appraisal. In view of that, delay made by the reporting officer is overruled. In so far as the point of competency of making report is concerned, the report has to be made in accordance with the circular dt. 29.03.2019 issued by the Joint Commissioner (Pers), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan to the Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, All Regional Offices on the subject of amendment in the Reporting Authority & Reviewing Authority of Primary Teachers (PRTS), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTS) and Post Graduate Teachers (PGTS) in Kendriya Vidyalayas for the purpose of filling APARs from the Academic Calender 2019-20.
5. The issue of APAR in question appears to be in the year 2019-20 which is graded average ie., 4.93 and extracted herein from next page:-
dodifar, Sonam tho.
: onl oS ye 6 OA 9/2023 aaret af | Sater a Pete 20g? Teseeerysseetan a Raport for tha yaar f pariod ondin ?
Sfire'ge 3 fhe Somer the Gri fire av &, wt 1-10 S fat wea sel egret eT eae TT I by tha ty which should be a ona scalo of © are cos and Pe oenand io be Justiind in the pen pictura) (Grado 4 «_ xn en) _ ;
rT ghisgn to ths section wil bo. 40%) .
saityertt | waltrert (aris & WEE a2 & ad 4) Initial of Reviawing Reporting 'Authority (Refer Authority Para 2 of Port-5} 4 ' 5° Accompishmont of planned a ;
work satad 2s por cubject Sled 4 Ss ward Pret WT ae Cualty of work output ' frreaners arqar :
Accomplishmont of oxceptional work J unforesoan task perf ATE tedeseaed @ ATT oT Street te Overad average Grading on Viotk Gutput 142434444 wag shea Wi wr 40% tea 40% weightago of overak average grading Ero a.
Managerical skills ef the officer ani ar atta is WIG 14249+445468474849 |.
+o wal falter wel or 'ara :
Overall Avorge Grading on Personal, .7 OA 9/2023
ine en ----y-- --
f + { .
' :
° a aston a 4 Prasn, homme... fy be 4 Aces Namecal thy
- » -- sara wd | se zh fe . . J L aol: 2B sane Report Svat for tha year # pesod a, @ afters Reem amt Guiars (ga arr at Soa 30% ere) w * eon (8) ASSESSMENT OF PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES (weightage to this section wi-be 30%) (Cox , ! ' .
"0 Rarer Pedi * Waite witlste: | ct ie faire 1) outer | meme | 'ert. | mie, | <= v Attibutes' ! qa as Smet ware te we | = oh mutes Graded by Inia! of Grades by - frat g | o i Rapaitin Reportin Reviewing Roviewty . Authorty Auhostys Authority Autony L----~ : } --_--
1 2 3 4 _ i. 5 (F "4 -- we Rit trait . i . .
. Atttude te work ; . 4 : i h 6)..
2. | Reet or whe ". ra ; _ Senco of responsibilty "e a Qo & G)- B _----
*: Maint o OF disciph Ay 4 ; I og | ainterane Scipine L- } =
4. [ST where / aWeser * . .
* {Communication skills . 6 . \ he : a ; Gy
5. " ra ww " | Leadership quatties 5 q S Gb ;
6, | ar at diy wen Ff org om at ' 1 ~ a Sa ees | Gh .
Capacity to work In a team wih feam fa 4 $e spirit : 4 .
77. Pres wearer ag . 14 Capacty to adhare to time schedule : Ge eins . : 4 8, [uray war : .
Intor personal relations '3S {- ty Q- ww
9. | aftrert 4 ade where 1 ------e Atifbules 1 F249444+54 847%, B+8+94+9 {We Ger shat DR ar 20% Aaa 30% welght ago of ovarall _pveragey grading 8 OA 9/2023 VY 7:
satel 4 ATT ' a ov tee. ere Abeba. Namo of tha Oficer * a fi ares af f afaftr ay Rate vs 2OFI5 22.1 ou - Repor ron fo tha year / period ending in Sere met ee Se sears etait apie a array 48a 30% eT) Lois ; ; {C) ASSESSMENT OF FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCY (welghlage o tect wil bo 20%) aunty Rar or aad wa eEicadl waidarrs do Aire miter | mites |} "mend waftrorat 8 st ails ae ts omar qari Te anes Na Ausibutns Graded by intial off "Grado by Initial of : Roparting Reporting Revewing Reviowlhng . Authority Authority Authority Authority 4 Z 3 a 5. G 1 | one ord da S Preis RP er ar ar ot we seh oe ¥ By wed Bt are :
'Knowledge of Rules / Regulatlo -o° Procedurss in tha eee! : ; F 8 . and abéity to apply them carrecty. a oe _ aan 2 | igre dorm aah et a"
Strategic flanning sbity 5 g 5 o, . '| Pei 38 Gt er .
3. .
. Decision making abiity Ye LL : 4 ©). , 4 | (rad an * .
Coordination ability ) = 3 &), 5, | aditrer wt tha eet od ord @ oft aPrafe etre wet sr 6, era , 4 . : 4 , Abiiy to motive and davelop work a pe" ;
6. | Veet Uied . :
"| iniative A vo } Oh, waged wit qezegedest6+68 727 ot c .
-O aan shag 37 . 5 :
Overall Average Grading on 6). FuncSonal aliibutes ; .
1424344454046 ;
; : Le _ @, "
sam ahaa Dey wr 30% or a KK ;
30% weightage of ovarad average { ~ wa grading .
<a Ree Mme ne 9 OA 9/2023 ad 4 slligesscmeeraneeee: |B + Se --
" . -8- :
Patra Kumaoe fi Noma of te te
7 chlor - . ab, wars a / araitt hf, 1 Bel FAIRE Report for tha year / period «, 'a4 28 yt PART tke, featitar satrartt at amare 2 oof i' oe pS + GENERAL REMARKS OF THRHEPORTING OFFICER ae a 4, suet Ora a ares war (RT ATT, Py ; vO Rolalions with tho publle (wherever athe hy (eran at arent oH Ted SR, wriat aaHTa S UAT a Roh &y
- {Ploase comment on the offiter's ssceedbty to the public and shenessta dhe neads) : Te ™~ 'desbrcule . Ee 2 wert s Tranng CI , a) fren afta' wr aiftres wank ad wah ord ermal # 3 Rroifeat & sida # feupth fast ER Oh gfx & sae wean S fig (Please give ccuommenaatone? for af wilh a view to improving the effectiveness and capabiites of ofiicer) § Rec | z - 4 a . -*e A 7 4 3 wR Stato of Heath ae ' fe -- ;
< ao 4 t A min L 4 ) 4. Feary s Integrity i . come 3) (Please comment on the integiity of,tha officer) 5 Wana 2 ag a (a) FH aeter organ aiftrerdt gare Pq Ty crane ated orf a ae _ 8 afk of at, Ba wafer we & Wr ae) FI Do you agree with ihe excapons! geod work done by the officer as indicated al Rem 3 (8) in part 2. Hf yes please g* mo binvher appropriately whh maximum one mark as D.
- (: ) 10 OA 9/2023 a eens : - ea
9. . a ateert ar art Th +! Pde kumar forge... Rama of the Officer te Co. ' sara wl / steer a utd 'te . Spline. rovaneussess Report far tho year ¢ poried anding; ' *% "* ; ay
(a) Reefer exRrerdt wearer after aftr wh aor Arsenal Sparks 1 GeTaT 100 weal 4) frat we eo cre Reed cat sof aril & Sat, Ate wed, Teenagh seneaTal Ge Gia / Ace at . ae ;
waa 3 afigit gr sete ert wT | _ Pan Picture by Reporting Officer (in about in 100 words} on tho overgl] duattios of the officer Including aroa of slrangihs and fessor strongih, aximordiery achloyemonils, signihcant faiuras and atltute lowards weaker sections.
t f on a t Peery Te | I ty foté 8 ata (oealapote arte Sua fey tte S mae we wa domere RT | Overs] numerical grading on the basis of weightage glen in Part - 3 (A#B+C)+0 of Pail 4 of tha report.
REVRB ELST HLA) = A IT t Signatuze of Me Reported Offcor.
FS oi t A Namo by Blok iters 2 Lata onl re Tae 3 /. .
Dreslgnatorh Sesscssssssnf ted aioe RTE PPL pa ane messsansnsntes PKERDRITA VIDYALAYA hs cee WTCSTTAC TN, / Pazhaventhangal PO REIN [heen - 114 PT LL Ree aR we HRT | H ll OA 9/2023 It was also drawn to our attention by Mr. Singh that Principal in fact is not the competent authority to report the performance of the applicant. The amendment in Reporting and Reviewing Authority dt. 29.03.2019 is extracted herein below :- A
- RS '-
"2. Accordingly, in compliance of the decision of the BOG of KVS, the new system for Reporting and Reviewing Authorities of APARS for the following cadres in Kendriya Vidyalayas is adopted from the academic year 2019-20:-
Sl. No. [Name of Post | Existing Provision Amended Provision _ Reporting | Reviewing Reporting Reviewing Authority Authority Authority Authority l PGTs Principal of] Assistant Vice Principal|Principal of (All subject) [KV Commissioner |of KVIKV 4 TGTs (All concerned of RO} concermed concerned subject) concerned 3 TGT @H & HE) TOT (RT) TGT (WE) PRIMARY Principal of} Assistant Head Master}Principal of TEACHER {KV Commissioner' | of KVIRV 7 PRIMARY concerned of RO} concermed concerned TEACHER concemed (MUSIC) id
6. The amendment was made on 29.03.2019 whereas as per the existing provision the Principal is the competent reporting authority for the reporting of the PGTs and the applicant-is also a PGT. From above it appears that as per the amended provisions, the Vice-Principal is the competent reporting authority for PGTs and Principal is the competent reviewing authority. The reporting authority reported on 24.09.2020 where the amendment dt. 29.03.2019 was very = pereen* - 12 OA 9/2023 much in force and in existence as on the said date. In view of that, we hold that ae the Principal was not the competent reporting authority for the applicant. Hence, the grading of the reporting officer/subsequently reviewing officer is non est and to be ignored for all purposes in the applicant's service career. Consequently, the impugned order dt. 14.12.2021 (Annexure A21) is set aside and quashed.
7. Accordingly, the OA is allowed with the above observations/directions.
No order as to costs. 7 eee