Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Sanjay Narayan More vs M/O Agriculture on 3 April, 2024
O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH JABALPUR Original Application No.200/00766/2013 Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 3rd day of April, 2024 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Sanjay Narayan More, aged 36 years, s/o Shri N B More, Occupation- Assistant Engineer (T4 Grade) at Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering) Navi Bagh, Bhopal. At present on study leave prosecuting his studies of M.Tech in PHP & FE, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Adhartal, Jabalpur, R/o 1108-A, J.P. Nagar, Adhartal, Jabalpur, Pin 482002 (Permanent Address House of Shri N B More, Ganga Nagar-I, Akola-444005 (M.S.)
-Applicant (By Advocate - Shri K N Pethia) Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, through its Secretary, Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar, Barailly (U.P.) Pin 243122
3. Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (ICAR), through its Director, Nabi Bagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal - 462012 (M.P.)
- Respondents (By Advocate- Shri S K Mishra) (Date of reserving order: 19.01.2024) Order By Shri Kumar Rajesh Chandra, AM.
Page 1 of 8
O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 Through this Original Application, the applicant is challenging the validity of the notification/circular dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure A/1) has prayed for a direction to the respondents to treat the ACRs of the applicant for the year 2003 to 2008 at par with the bench marks provided in the Notification (Annexure A/5).
2. Briefly, the facts of the case of the applicant are that the applicant was selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineer) T-II-3 grade on 03.10.1998 with the respondent institution. The applicant has got regular career advancement in October 2003 from the post of T-II-3 grade (Assistant Engineer) to T-4 Grade (Assistant Engineer) on the basis of his ACRs on the criteria prescribed in the guidelines contained in Annexure A/4. The applicant was never assigned those duties from 2003 to 2008 but was assigned the duties of the posts which are not commensurate to his academic qualification on the basis of which he was selected on the post of Assistant Engineer. The council amended the guidelines for career advancement vide circular dated 26th December 2005. The applicant was assigned the duties attached to his post of Assistant Engineer (Agricultural Engineering) T4 Grade w.e.f. 26.08.2010 and since then his performance in terms of grading is outstanding. Impugned ACRs for the period from 2003 to 2008 which were communicated to the applicant vide covering memo dated Page 2 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 27/28.01.2011 only on the application under the RTI Act whereas the adverse ACRs ought to have been communicated. Thereafter the applicant submitted his representation to the respondent no. 2 though respondent no. 3 for upgradation of his ACRs but vide memo dated 10.05.2012, the aforesaid representations were turned down vide impugned order dated 19.02.2013 whereby it has been communicated to the petitioner that the committee under the provision of Rule 6.1 of the TSR has not recommended for promotion upto 02.10.2008. The applicant got regular career advancement from T-II-3 to T-4 from 1998 to 2003 and after coming into force of the impugned Rules of which the constitutional validity is under challenge in this application, the applicant is deprived of career advancement. On account of negligence on the part of the respondents the applicant is deprived of the benefit of career advancement w.e.f. 2003.
3. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that IVRI, being an ICAR institute, an autonomous apex body registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860, and responsible for organisation and management of research and education in the country and is governed by its own set of Rules/bye-Laws namely ICAR society Rules. By virtue of Rule 40 of the same, the Governing Body of the ICAR society has framed its own set of Bye-Laws, namely ICAR Bye-Laws. As per the Rule 6.1 of the Technical Services Rules (TSR) there shall Page 3 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 be a system of merit promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of the occurrence of the vacancy in the higher grade or grant of advance increment(s) in the same grade, on the basis of the assessment of performance. The ICAR has elaborated the assessment procedure of technical personnel vide its letter dated 27.03.2001 (Annexure R/1) and subsequently vide its letter dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure R/2) modifying the said procedure. The respondents further submitted that the case of the applicant for his assessment/promotion (for 5 yearly period 03.10.2003 to 03.10.2008) was considered but due to his not securing the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 67 out of 100 he could not be recommended by the DPC for promotion to the next higher grade. There is no violation of any rule or Courts decision. With regard to the communication of the ACRs to the applicant, the respondents submitted that there was no provision in the rule to communicate the grade of ACRs except adverse remarks to employee as per the instructions of the GOI/ICAR. From the year 2008-09 onwards only the copies of the ACR have been started to be given to the employees. The below average grading of the ACR for the year 2007-08 has already been communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 04.12.2008 against which no representation was received from him within the stipulated time. So, on being eligible for consideration for promotion, the Page 4 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 applicant was considered but he could not secure the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 67% for grant of promotion to the next higher grade; hence he could not be promoted. The instructions dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure A/1) is as per Appendix 'III' of Handbook of TSR, which cannot be said to be unconstitutional or ultra vires.
4. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents. In the rejoinder, the applicant has taken his earlier stand by contravening the submissions made in the reply and further reiterated the submissions made in the original application.
5. This Tribunal has considered the matter and perused the documents annexed herewith the Original Application. The written submissions filed by the counsel for the applicant have also been taken into consideration. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the parties are also taken into consideration.
6. It is clear that the ICAR, being an autonomous body registered under the "Societies Registration Act 1860" is governed by its own set of Rules/bye-Laws namely ICAR society Rules. By virtue of Rule 40 of the same, the Governing Body of the ICAR society has framed its own set of Bye-Laws, namely ICAR Bye-Laws. The IVRI is governed by the ICAR society Rules. The respondents in their Reply have annexed Annexure R/1 and R/2 wherein vide annexure Page 5 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 R/1, the counsel has elaborated the assessment procedure of technical personnel vide its letter dated 27.03.2001 and subsequently vide its letter dated 26.12.2005 (Annexure R/2) modified the said procedure. The said modification is done without any intention of malafide and the applicant when became ineligible for upgradation as per Annexure R/2, challenged the same later. In their reply, the respondents have also clarified the reasons for not communicating grading of ACRs except the adverse remarks to the employee as the then existing instructions. Furthermore, the below average grading of the ACR for the year 2007-08 was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 04.12.2008, to which no representation was received from the applicant within stipulated time.
7. The applicant's contention regarding the adverse entry that if the adverse entry not communicated to the officer to be reported upon, then adverse entry should not be considered. He also place reliance upon the judgment of the hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Dev Dutt vs Union of India and Others. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the verdict in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) was pronounced in the year 2008, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that every entry in the ACRs whether good or bad, should be communicated to the employee concerned. But, in the present case, the ACRs under challenged pertains to the period from 2003-2008, Page 6 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 i.e. prior to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra). Even otherwise, it is a settled position that Courts/Tribunals has limited jurisdiction to interfere in ACR Grading unless there is allegation of malafide or proven that it is done with an intention of denying promotion to the applicant.
8. In the case of Rajendra Singh Verma Vs. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2011 10 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:-
"Writing the confidential report is primarily and essentially an administrative function. Normally tribunals/Courts are loath to interfere in cases of complaints against adverse remarks and to substitute their own judgment for that of the reporting or reviewing officers. It is because these officers alone are best suited to judge the qualities of officials working under them and about their competence in the performance of official duties entrusted to them. Despite fear of abuse of power by prejudiced superior officers in certain cases, the service record contained in the confidential reports, by and large, reflects the real personality of the officer."
9. We also find that there is delay in filing this Original Application as the applicant is seeking to expunge his ACRs pertaining to the period from 2003-2008 while the present Original Application has been filed in the year 2013. The cause of action arose in favour of the applicant in the year 2008 when he was not found fit for promotion/career advancement. However, the applicant kept mum and did not agitate his grievances and it is only after receiving the Page 7 of 8 O.A.No. 200/00766/2013 information through RTI in the year 2013, he is challenging the remarks made in his ACRs between 2003-2008, which cannot be said to be a cogent reason to condone the delay. He should have agitated the issue regarding his financial upgradaton/career advancement at that point of time when he was not found suitable.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh Verma (supra), we are of the considered view that this Original Application is not only time barred but also deserved to be dismissed on merits.
11. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
VK/-
Page 8 of 8