Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ishwar Singh vs Agricultural Research And Education on 23 April, 2024
1
(OA No. 060/984/2023
&
3 connected OAs)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 06.03.2024
Pronounced on: 23.04.2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
(1) O.A. No.060/984/2023
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Antu Ram, working as Technical Officer,
Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal. (Group-B)
...... Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr,
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi through Director General
2. Director, Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal.
3. Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Wheat &
Barley Research, Karnal.
.......Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma)
(2) O.A. No.060/987/2023
Madan Lal, S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, working as Technical Officer,
Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal. (Group-B)
..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr,
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi through Director General
2. Director, Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal.
2
(OA No. 060/984/2023
&
3 connected OAs)
3. Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Wheat &
Barley Research, Karnal.
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma)
(3) O.A. No.060/989/2023
Om Parkash S/o S. Chothu Ram, working as Technical Officer,
Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal. (Group-B)
..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr,
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi through Director General
2. Director, Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal.
3. Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Wheat &
Barley Research, Karnal.
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma)
(4) O.A. No.060/988/2023
Ishwar Singh, S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram, working as Technical Officer,
Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal. (Group-B)
..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. A.K. Bhardwaj)
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhawan, Dr,
Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi through Director General
2. Director, Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley Research, Karnal.
3
(OA No. 060/984/2023
&
3 connected OAs)
3. Chief Administrative Officer, Indian Institute of Wheat &
Barley Research, Karnal.
... Respondents
(By Advocate : Sh. R.K. Sharma)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. All the above four Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.060/984/2023 (Suresh Kumar Vs. UOI & Ors.) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.
2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
i. Order dated 14/15/09.2023 (Annexure A-1) read with OM dated 14.09.2023/ 15.09.2023 (Annexure A-
26) passed during the pendency of Original Application No. 869 of 2023 in which stay on the passing of any such order was prayed for and notice was already issued, be quashed. In the impugned order the promotion order dated 30.08.2012 has been withdrawn and promotion date of the applicant has been revised after more than 11 Years.
ii. Letter dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure A-1/A) vide which, in the light of earlier letter dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure A-2), respondent No.1 has treated the promotion of the applicant as T-3 by removing of category bar, not in accordance with the provisions of 4 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) Technical Service Rules and has directed respondent No.2 to take corrective measures for the same, be quashed.
iii. Show cause notice dated 23/24.08.2023 (Annexure A-3) issued 3 years of issuing the identical show cause notice (Annexure A-4) which was duly replied by all the applicant and which is issued after more than 10 years of their promotion orders, vide which the applicant has been directed to show cause as to why they may not be reverted as per the their qualification be quashed.
iv. Directions be issued to the respondents to keep the promotions granted to the applicant after removal of category bar intact, the same been granted after thorough consultation and discussion by high level committee regarding the qualifications of the applicant and further for the reason that there being no misrepresentation at any stage by the applicant and further to grant them further promotion to T-6 (Category-III) from the date it became due. v. Process initiated on letter dated 22.08.2023 and show cause notice dated 23/24.08.2023 be stayed and directions be issued to the respondents to not to revert the applicant till the pendency of the present Original Application."
3. The facts as taken out from OA No. 060/984/2023 are that the applicant was appointed as Field Farm Technicians (T-1). All the technical employees under the respondents are governed by Technical Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as TSR). The Technical Service Rules were original framed in the year 1975 and came into force w.e.f. 01.10.1975. Later on, the said rules were modified on 03.02.2000. As per Clause 3.1 of the TSR, the Technical Services are 5 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) grouped into three categories i.e. Category-I, Category-II and Category-III consisting of different grades with scales of pay as adopted by the ICAR on the basis of recommendations made by IV and V Central Pay Commission. That Rule 6.1 of the Technical Service Rules, 1975 deals with Career Advancement and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Rule 6.1: There shall be system of merit promotion from one grade to next higher grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancies in higher grade or grant of advance increment (s) in the same grade, on the basis of assessment of performance. The persons concerned will be eligible consideration for such promotion or for the grant of advance increment (s) after the expiry of the number of prescribed years of service in the grade as detailed in the succeeding paras".
4. That as per Rule 6.3, the entrants of Category I at T-
1 grade would continue to be regulated for assessment from T-l to T-2 after five years of service, as at present. However, the T-2 grade personnel, possessing the qualifications, as prescribed herein further under the Notification of 3 February 2000 for Category II for direct recruitment, would be eligible for assessment promotion to T-3 grade after five years of service, while those not possessing such qualifications shall 6 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) become eligible for assessment promotion to T-3 grade only after 10 years of service in T-2 grade. The assessment promotions from T-3 to T-4 and T-4 to T-5 shall continue to be regulated at five years interval, as at present. Further as per Rule 6.4 of the TSR the provisions relating to Category barrier for assessment promotions from T-5 grade of Category II to T-6 grade of Category III have been revised as in the following paras:
(a) The technical personnel in T-5 grade (Rs 6,500-10,500) and possessing essential qualifications, prescribed as herein further under the Notification of 3 February 2000 for Category III for direct recruitment, shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 (Rs 8,000-13,500) grade after completing five years of service in T-5 grade
(b) The T-5 technical personnel who do not possess the essential qualifications as for direct recruitment prescribed herein further under the Notification of 3 February 2000 for Category III shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 grade after completing 10 years of service in T-5 grade provided such technical personnel possess qualifications prescribed under the Notification dated 3 February 2000 for direct recruitment to CategoryII (T-3). However, such technical personnel in T-5 grade who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under the Notification dated 3 February 2000 for direct recruitment to Category II (T-3) shall not be eligible for further assessment promotion to Category III of the Technical Services.
A copy of the Technical Service Rules as amended on 03.02.2000 as well the amended qualifications of 7 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) Field/Farm Technicians are attached herewith as Annexure A-4 & amended qualification on 24.02.2006 as Annexure A-5.
5. That, at the time of joining of the applicant, he was possessing two years Crop Production course under 10 + 2 Vocational Education Scheme and on the basis of the aforesaid qualification he was appointed as T-1 (Annexure A-6). At the time of joining of the applicant, Old Technical Service Rules were applicable and the Minimum Educational/ Trade Qualification for Category II was inter alia Three years Diploma/ Bachelor‟s Degree in relevant field and it was specifically mentioned in the TSR that in fields where the duration of courses available in the country is only 2 years, the minimum qualification will be 2 years instead of 3 years. A copy of the Appendix IV prescribing qualifications for all three categories as per the Old TSR is attached herewith as Annexure A-7.
6. Because vide circular F. No. 19(10)/ 2004-Estt.IV dated the 24th February, 2006 qualifications were further amended. For Group I Field/ Farm 8 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) Technicians and for Category II amended qualifications are "Bachelor degree in Agriculture or any other branch of science/ social science relevant to agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized university". The qualification for Category II in field farm Technicians was amended as under:-
CATEGORY - II Existing Qualification Amended Qualification Bachelor‟s degree in the Bachelor‟s degree in Agriculture or relevant field or any other branch of science/social equivalent qualifications science relevant to agriculture or from a recognized equivalent qualification from a university. recognized university.
7. That with regard to clarification on "equivalent qualification" in the eligibility criteria for Category-II, respondent No.1 had issued a letter dated 20.11.2001 in which it was specifically mentioned that "while implementing the revised model qualifications, institute concerned are required to apply the equivalent qualifications wherever required as in the past but as per the duly notified/recognized equivalent qualifications by the competent authorities such as Ministry of Human Resource Development, or any other nodal Ministry/Department of the 9 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) Government of India." Copy of the letter dated 20.11.2001 is attached herewith as Annexure A-8.
From the letter dated 20.11.2001, it is clarified that equivalent qualifications could be applied as it was applied in the Old Technical Service Rules.
8. That as per Appendix IV of old Technical Rules, minimum education/trade qualifications for different groups of the three categories of Field/Farm Technicians is as under:-
"Category-II
(i) Three years Diploma/Bachelor‟s Degree in equivalent field.
(ii) 3 years experience in the relevant field for Diploma holder * In fields where the duration of Diploma Courses available in the country is only two years, the minimum qualification will be Two years Diploma instead of three years Diploma."
Thus, as per letter dated 20.11.2001, the concept of equivalence has not been changed and the institute concerned is required to apply the equivalent qualification wherever required, as in the past i.e. the three/two year diploma was to be treated as 10 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) alternate/equivalent qualification to Bachelor‟s degree for category- II.
9. That the applicant joined the ICAR- IIWBR, Karnal as T-
1 (Field/Farm) on dated 16.05.1996. At the time of his joining the applicant was possessing two years Crop Production Course under 10+2 Vocational Education Scheme. Vocational courses are training-based courses that aim at preparing students for a particular career, skill, or trade. Unlike traditional courses like BE/B.Tech/MBBS; Vocational courses focus on practical skills, and on-site training and thus offer better & quicker job opportunities. Under 10+2 vocational courses a student gets skilled in addition to normal study of 10+2. In the handbook issued by NCERT about vocational courses, it has been specifically mentioned that such vocational course would bring job opportunity to the student as Field Assistant/Farm Assistant. Vide letter dated 8.11.1996 (Annexure A-9), DWR, Karnal had sought clarification that "In the State of Haryana after Matric two years course is accorded and instead of calling it a diploma it is being indicated "Certificate" 11
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) under 10+2 Examination Vocational Scheme and issued by the Secretary, State Council for Vocational Education, Haryana. Since the above said course is akin to that of diploma course in its practical contents, the Council may give us a clarification whether such candidates can also be considered for the position of T- II-3, keeping in view that there is no difference in the duration of the study i.e. (10+2)." In reply to the said letter the ICAR vide letter dated 09.01.1997 (Annexure A-10) clarified that "In the case of candidates from outside the ICAR system a Certificate course cannot be equated with a Diploma." This reply of the ICAR clarifies 2 things that it has been admitted by DWR that in the State of Haryana after Matric two years course is indicated as certificate and secondly, the same can be equated with a Diploma in cases of candidates inside the ICAR system.
10. It is further averred in OA that one Sh. Om Parkash, who is similarly situated colleague of the applicant, on his own level tried to confirm from the Haryana State Board of Technical Education as to whether there is any 12 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) 2 years diploma in crop production Agriculture being conducted by the HSBTE. In reply to the query from Sh. Om Parkash, it has been clarified by Haryana State Board of Technical Education that "Two years diploma in Crop Production Agriculture has neither been conducted in the past nor is being conducted presently." Copy of the E-mail received from HSBTE is annexed herewith as Annexure A-11. Earlier IIWBR had also approached the Director, Industrial Training Deptt. Haryana, Chandigarh to get clarification regarding the course passed by the applicant to examine the eligibility under alternate qualification vide IIWBR dated 25.01.2011 and it was clarified by the ITD vide letter dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure A-12) that this two years course "Farm Organisation and Management" renames as "Crop Production" is having fully agriculture based course contents and is two years agriculture course.
11. That the applicant was promoted to the post of T-2 on the basis of 5 years assessment promotion on dated 16.05.2001 initially. The applicant was promoted to T-3 (Category- II) i.e. after completion of 10 years of 13 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) service in T-2 Grade i.e. on 16.05.2011, however, since in the past the council had clarified vide letter No. 9(31)/98-ESTT.-IV dated 03.12.1998 addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer, IVRI Izatnagar that where there was no 2 year diploma in trade in the country, the diploma of one year course may be considered for removal of category bar and on the basis of the same one Sh. T.L. Jaggi and Sh. Rajiv Gupta who were having one year certificate were considered for removal of category bar, the applicant also moved representation that his two year course be also considered for removal of category bar. Therefore, a high level committee was formed to review the claim of the applicant and after recommendation of the committee and approval of the Director the applicant, on the basis of his qualification, he was considered for removal of the category bar and applicant was again assessed for promotion to the post of T-3 w.e.f. 16.05.2006 considering him eligible for removal of category bar from category I to category II and after completion of 5 years in T-2 the applicant was further promoted on assessment promotion basis after every 5 year i.e. to the post of T-4 w.e.f. 16.05.2011. 14
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) The applicant was further promoted to T-5 w.e.f. 16.05.2016. Copy of the letter dated 30.08.2012 vide which category bar was removed in case of the applicant and further letter dated 30.08.2012 vide which applicant was further promoted from T4 to T5, both are attached herewith as Annexures A-13 & 14. All the promotions were recommended by DPC and were made after the approval of the Director who is the competent authority for grant of merit promotions under Technical Services Rules upto T-6 level.
12. That the question of equivalent of one Year Diploma had arisen in case of one Sh. T.L. Jaggi. The ICAR vide letter dated 24.9.1997 (Annexure A-15) addressed to Director, NDRI, Karnal asked latter that "it has been decided that as there was no two years diploma in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Course during the period Shri Jaggi obtained the one year course certificate and the course contents of 1 year certificate of the period was the same for two years diploma now being awarded. The case of Shri Jaggi may be 15 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) considered for removal of category barrier as per Council‟s letter No. 14-3/94 E.IV dated 1.2.1995".
13. That the Council has further clarified vide office letter No.9(31)/98-Estt.-IV dated 3.12.1998 (Annexure A-16) that where there was no two year diploma in the trade in the country, the diploma of one year course may be considered for removal of category bar. That it is pertinent to mention here that earlier IIWBR had approached the Director, Industrial Training Deptt. Haryana, Chandigarh to get clarification regarding the course passed by the applicant to examine the eligibility under alternate qualification vide IIWBR dated 25.01.2011 and it was clarified by the ITD vide letter dated 11.02.2011 that this two years course " Farm Organisation and Management" renames as "Crop Production" is having fully agriculture based course contents and is two years agriculture course.
14. That now since the applicant possesses qualifications for direct recruitment to category II (T-3) on the basis of his two year vocational course, the promotion of the 16 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) applicant to T-6 is due after ten years of service in T-5 i.e. on 16.05.2026.
15. That to the utter surprise of the applicant in the year 2020, the applicant received show cause notice dated 03.12.2020 (Annexure A-17)whereby the promotion of the applicant to the post of T-3 with effect from 16.05.2006 was not found to be in accordance with the provisions of New Technical Service Rules and therefore, show cause notice was issued to the applicant as to why he not be reverted.
16. That in reply to the show cause notices the applicant submitted his reply (Annexure A-18)and thereafter, no action was taken either for promotion of applicant or with regard to any reversion.
17. That even though reply of show cause notices dated 03.12.2020 was submitted by the applicant yet the respondents issued another identical show cause notices dated 23/24-08.2023 (Annexure A-3) whereby while referring to letter dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure A- 1/A) the applicant has been directed to show cause as to why he may not be reverted back. It is pertinent to 17 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) mention here that as per the letter dated 22.08.2023, "The matter was once again presented in front of the competent authority. However, the stand of the Technical Service Division remains the same as communicated by the Crop Science Division vide letter 25.11.2020. The Institute is directed by the Competent Authority to take necessary corrective measures in accordance with the extant rules after following all codal formalities."
18. That from a bare perusal of the show cause notice as well of the letter dated 22.08.2023, it is conspicuous that the fresh show cause notice was nothing else but an eye-wash, but a decision to revert the applicant had already been taken. The show cause notice dated 23/24.08.2023 is mere a photocopy of the earlier show- cause notice dated 03.12.2020 and thus letter dated 22.08.2023 and show cause notice dated 23/24.08.2023 are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
19. That since the applicant was sure that the day he will submit his reply, the respondents will take action for withdrawal of his promotion orders and will not consider 18 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) his reply at all and therefore, after submission of his reply, the applicant immediately approached this Hon‟ble Court vide OA No. 869 of 2023 for stay on the letter dated 22.08.2023 vide which respondent No.1 has treated the promotion of the applicant as T-3 by removing of category bar, not in accordance with the provisions of Technical Service Rules and has directed respondent No.2 to take corrective measures for the same.
20. That this Hon‟ble Court issued notice in the said Original Application and the case was adjourned for a short date for submission of reply and for arguments on the ground of stay. "However, in the meantime, as was anticipated, the respondents, without considering the reply submitted by the applicant, issued office memo dated 14/15.09.2023 (Annexure A-26) and on the same day passed impugned order Annexure A-1 vide which promotion order dated 30.08.2012 has been withdrawn and promotion date of the applicant has been revised after more than 11 Years.
19
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
21. That since the impugned order was passed during the pendency of the Original Application No.869 of 2023 and was otherwise also not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, in order to challenge the said order Original Application No.869 of 2023 was withdrawn by the applicant and present Original Application is being filed.
22. That similar issue had come before the respondents in case of one Chanchal Rani who was also having the qualification of Matriculation with one year Diploma in Medical Laboratory and she was promoted till T-5 on the basis of the case of Sh. Rajiv Gupta of Izatnagar, however, vide letter dated 29.04.2013 she was informed that one year Diploma could not be considered relevant for removal of Category Bar from Cat-I to Cat- II and as such her promotion was hold to be erroneous. Against the said orders and subsequent 2 orders, Chanchal Rani approached this Hon‟ble court by way of filing OA 1313/HR/2013. This Hon‟ble Court while relying upon one order dated 02.01.2014 passed by the Hon‟ble Principal Bench in OA No.2438/2012 quashed 20 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) the impugned orders holding that "the error is neither inadvertent nor unintended. It is an error known to all concerned and therefore, to punish the applicant by reverting her to her pre-promotion status on a plea that the respondents themselves have relaxed in similar cases, cannot be deemed to be just and therefore, acceptable." Copy of the order passed in case of Smt. Chanchal Rani is attached herewith as Annexure A-19 and copy of the order passed in OA No.2438 of 2012 titled as Anuradha Kapoor Vs. DG & Secretary, ICAR is attached herewith as Annexure A-20. In the order passed in OA No.2438/2012, the Hon‟ble Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi has held that "in our opinion reversion of the applicant after such long years of service is shocking and unjustified. It will cause irreparable loss to the careers of the applicant. Applicant is not a fault in this as their educational qualifications were well known to the respondents, and there was no misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. Yet there were not only appointed but also allowed to work and earn promotions for so many years. Therefore, in the 21 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) interest of justice, we quash the reversion notices issued to the applicant." The order passed in Chanchal Rani‟s case was challenged by the respondents before the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High court, Chandigarh, by way of filing CWP No.l0613/CAT/2015 however, the same was also dismissed (Annexure A-21).
23. The applicant submits that whenever any employee with identical qualification has applied for direct appointment to the post of T-II-3 with the same qualification, his application has always been entertained by the respondents. One such example is the list of the candidates who qualified for the interview for the post of T-II-3 (Agronomy) held on 22.06.1996 in which name of Sh. Om Parkash figures at Sr. No.49 (Annexure A-23). In the year 1999 also, Sh. Om Parkash was called for written examination for the post of T-II-3 vide letter dated 13.07.1999 (Annexure A-24) while he was holding the same qualification of 10+2 Vocational Course.
22
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
24. Thus, the applicant submits that he possesses the qualification to lift the category bar to be shifted from Category-I to Category-II as his qualification is covered under the scope of equivalent qualification and secondly, in view of the judgment passed in OA No.2438/2012 which was also followed by this Hon‟ble Court in OA No.1313/HR/2013 titled as Chanchal Rani Vs. ICAR and others, reversion of the applicant after such long years of service is unjustified. It will cause irreparable loss to the career of the applicant. Applicant is not at fault in this as their educational qualification was well known to the respondents, and there is no misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. In view of above, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Hence the present OA.
25. The respondents have filed the detailed written statement whereby they contended the averments made in the Original Application and submitted that action of the respondents is in accordance with the rules and guidelines and is perfectly legal. 23
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
26. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant has referred letters dated 08.11.1996 and 09.01.1997 and that the clarification given vide letter dated 09.01.1997 was for direct recruitment and condition of in-service candidate is applicable to the ICAR employees who were in service as on 01.01.1977 and hence the same is not applicable to the applicant. Further, the Institute (then DWR) vide letter dated 13.03.2002 wrote to Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana, whether the 10 + 2 Vocational Course is equivalent to Diploma or not. The Department vide its letter dated 13.05.2002 informed that 10 + 2 vocational course has not been declared as equivalent to Diploma till date. Moreover, the applicant opted for new TSR (applicable w.e.f. 03.02.2000) on 06.12.2006 and as per New TSR, essential qualification for direct recruitment in Cat-II (T-
3) is bachelor‟s degree in Agriculture or any other branch of science/social science relevant to agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized university. Thus, the applicant has misled this Tribunal by misrepresenting the facts.
24
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
27. It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant joined as T-1 (Field/Farm) on 16.05.1996 and promoted as T-2 w.e.f. 16.05.2001. After completion of five years of service in T-2 grade, he was not considered for promotion to T-3 (cat II) on the ground that two years course possessed by him was not equivalent to prescribed qualification for T-3. The applicant was then promoted to T-3 (Category-II) after completion of 10 years of service in T-2 Grade i.e. on 16.05.2011 as he did not possess the essential qualification for direct recruitment in Cat-II i.e. T-3. Later on, the applicant submitted several representations and the then Project Director constituted committee at Institute level to examine the case and the committee submitted its recommendations dated 18.05.2012 as follows:-
"In view of the above facts and documents enclosed, the committee is of the opinion that the technical staff of DWR having two years course and three years experience in the field of Crop Production may be considered for assessment from Category-I to Category-II after completing five years of service."
On the basis of above recommendations his case was put up before Technical Assessment Committee meeting 25 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) held on 18.08.2012, which gave its recommendations as follows:-
"these candidates possess 10 + 2 (Senior Secondary Certificate Examination/Vocational Education Scheme) from Vocation Education Institute. Whereas the ICAR rules says that in the fields where the duration of diploma courses available in the country is only Two Years. The minimum qualifications will be two years diploma instead of three years. In the light of above PD is requested to seek clarification before approval of DPC proceedings."
Thus, it is clearly evident that the Assessment Committee did not give clear recommendations for his promotion to T-3, instead it suggested taking clarifications before approval of DPC proceedings. Instead of seeking clarification from ICAR, the then Project Director obtained legal opinion at local level from an Advocate namely Sh. Devinder Sharma, Advocate District Court Karnal and approved the proceeding with remarks as follows:-
"as per the legal opinion & clarifications from time to time from ICAR and other such cases handled, report of DWR Special Committee, the cases are approved."
Accordingly, the employee was erroneously promoted retrospectively w.e.f. 2006 .e. five years earlier than he was promoted in 2011 as T-3. The official was subsequently promoted to the posts of 26 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) T-4 in the year 2011 and T-5 in the year 2016. Meanwhile, the Council clarified vide letters dated 25.11.2020 and 22.08.2023 that the applicant‟s assessment promotion to the post of T-3 Grade w.e.f. 16.05.2016 after completion of five years in T-2 Grade without having requisite qualification of Bachelor‟s Degree as required in New TSR has not been found to be in accordance with the provisions of his option of New Technical Service Rules and since Director of the Institute is competent authority in the case, he was served with the Show Cause Notice dated 24.08.2023 and subsequently while disposing of his representation, his date of promotions were rectified by withdrawing earlier erroneous office orders and the dates of his promotion were revised as T3 w.e.f. 16.05.2011, T-4 w.e.f. 16.05.2016 and T-5 w.e.f. 16.05.202. Thus, the action of the respondents is in accordance with Rules.
28. The applicant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating his stand taken in the OA. 27
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
29. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
30. The main contention of the applicant is that the qualification required for the direct recruitment in Category II has been changed initially in the year 2000 and later on in the year 2006. However, as per letter (Annexure A-8), the concept of equivalence has not been changed or redefined and the same is provided in the revised model qualifications. The applicants are having qualification of + 2 vocational course in Crop Production from Government institute and at that time, when the applicant did such course, no course in Crop Production was being offered by any Government Institute. The applicants wee promoted from T-2 to T-3 after a gap of ten years considering them not eligible for removal of category barrier as they did not consider the two years certificate course under the definition of „equivalence‟ as prescribed in the rules. 28
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
31. The further contention of the applicant is that the committee is of the opinion that the technical staff of DWR having two years course and three years experience in field of Crop Production may be considered for assessment from Category I to Category II after completing five years of service. After receiving the legal opinion, the applicants were promoted. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant has not misrepresented to the department and the conscious decision to promote the applicant has been taken on 30.08.2012 and now, after 12 years, the respondents are claiming the promotion of the applicants to be erroneous only on receipt of a mail from one Sh. Yogender on 16.09.2020. And now, after three years, the respondents realized that the decision taken in 2012 was erroneous and in the year 2023 vide the impugned order, the applicants were reverted back.
29
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
32. It has been further contended by the applicant that on the basis of such qualification, the category bar has been removed but earlier also, the employees having 1 year certificate course done after 10th have been promoted after removal of category bar from Category I to Category II.
33. On the other hand, the respondents have submitted that the applicants possess 10 + 2 vocational certificate (Crop Production) which has not been declared as equivalent to Diploma till date. The qualification equivalent to Diploma while relying on old TSR Rules and old circular of equivalence by placing reliance on letter dated 08.11.1996 (Annexure A-9) and 09.01.1997 (Annexure A-10). However, it has been contended by the respondents that letter dated 08.08.1996 referred in Annexure P-6 is relevant as per which alternative qualification will be applicable qua those who were in ICAR service 30 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) as on 01.01.977 whereas the applicants are not entitled for such benefits.
34. It has been contended by the respondents that the qualification of the applicants cannot be equivalent to Degree which is mandatory as per new TSR. Similarly, the judgements relied upon by the applicants relate to qualification of diploma and its equivalence i.e. certificates etc. and duration of 2 years or 3 years and as such cannot be applied to the present case where the qualification is degree in Agriculture, thus, the applicants are not eligible for jump of category bar from T-2 to T-3 after five years and were granted the same on completion of ten years.
35. The respondents submitted that the applicants did not possess either diploma which was the qualification under old TSR Rules prior to 03.02.2000 nor did they possess Degree in Agriculture or its equivalent after 03.02.2000 as required under the new SR as per their option and resultantly, Show Cause Notice was issued 31 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) on 03.12.2020 and 23/24.08.2023 and after affording them opportunity, final order was passed by the institute.
36. The respondents have relied upon the judgement passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Sunder Lal & Others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1970 PH 241 wherein it has been held that "if owning to some bona fide mistake, he Government has taken a decision, regarding the confirmation of an officer, it can certainly revise its decision at a subsequent stage, when the mistake comes to its notice. The mistake can be corrected and it cannot be said that it should be allowed to perpetuate even when the same is discovered".
37. The respondents have also placed reliance on judgement passed by the Apex Court in the case of R. Muthukumar and Others Vs. The Chairman and Managing Director Tangedco and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 140 wherein it has been held that any benefit granted to any 32 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) individual in violation of any rules cannot be a ground to claim parity.
38. From the facts itself, it is clear that the applicant possesses the qualification of two year Crop Production under 10 + 2 Vocational Education and as per Annexures A-9 and A-10, there is a clarification regarding qualification whether such candidates can also be considered for the position of T-II-3, keeping in view that there is no difference in the duration of the study i.e. (10+2). Paragraph 6.3 of old TSR (Annexure A-
4) reads as under:-
"6.3 As per the revised grade structure, the entrants of Category I at T-1 grade would continue to be regulated for assessment from T-1 to T-2 after five years of service, as at present. However, theT-2 grade personnel, possessing the qualifications, as prescribed hereinafter under the Notification of 3 February 2000 for Category II for direct recruitment, would be eligible for assessment promotion to T-3 grade after five years of service, while those not possessing such qualifications shall become eligible for assessment promotion to T-3 grade only after 10 years of service in T-2 grade. The assessment promotions from T-3 to T-4 and T-4 to T-5 shall continue to be regulated at five years interval, as at present."
As per Annexure A-5, the qualification for different groups are as under:-
33
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) CATEGORY I Existing Amended Qualification Qualification Matriculate with at No Change least one year certificate from recognized institution in the relevant field CATEGORY II Bahelor‟s degree in Bachelor‟s degree in the relevant field of Agriculture or any equivalent other branch of qualifications from a science/social science recognized university relevant to agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized university.
CATEGORY III Master‟s degree in Master‟s degree in the relevant field or Agriculture or any equivalent other branch of qualifications from a Science /Social recognized Science relevant to university. agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized University.
39. From Annexures A-4 and A-5 it is clear that the applicants are not eligible for jump of category from T-2 to T-3 after five years and were granted the same on completion of ten years 34 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) and the qualification equivalence to vocational course of 10 + 2 with a Diploma was under the old TSR and not under the new TSR. Whreas in the new TSR (Annexure A-5), the Bachelor‟s Degree in the relevant filed or equivalent qualification from a recognized University was the existing qualification and amended qualification is Bachelor‟s Degree in Agriculture or any other branch of Science/Social Science relevant to agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized University.
40. Thus, it is clear that the promotion made to the applicant is against the Rules itself. Though the applicant has relied upon the judgement passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of Anuradha Kapoor (supra), the same is not relevant as in the present case, the TSR are very specific wherein the qualification is Degree.
41. We have also perused the order passed by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Sunder Lal & Ors. (supra) wherein it 35 (OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs) has been held that if owning to some bona fide mistake, the Government has taken a decision, regarding the confirmation of an officer, it can certainly revise its decision at a subsequent stage, when the mistake comes to its notice and the mistake can be corrected and it cannot be said that it should be allowed to perpetuate even if when the same is discovered.
42. In the matter of R. Muthukumar and Others (supra), it has been held that the principle of negative equality cannot be there.
43. In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondents. Hence, all the above four Original Applications are dismissed being devoid of merit. However, the monetary benefits already availed by the applicants shall not be recovered.
44. All the pending MAs are also disposed off accordingly.
45. There shall be no order so as to costs. 36
(OA No. 060/984/2023 & 3 connected OAs)
46. A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*