Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 6 Others vs Ambrish Kumar Dubey on 1 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80340-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16389 of 2023 Petitioner :- Union of India and others Respondent :- Ambrish Kumar Dubey Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, Pratik J. Nagar for Vivek Tripathi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the Original Application filed by the respondent has been allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.11.2019, 31.03.2021 and 13.01.2022 have been quashed and the appellants herein have been directed to promote the respondent to the post of Technical Assistant with effect from 04.08.2018, i.e., on the completion of five years service on the post of T-2 (Senior Technician) as per Rule-6 of the Technical Service Rules of ICAR with all consequential benefits and pay arrears along with 6 per cent simple interest.
2. The Original Application was filed by the respondent-applicant, inter alia, with the submissions that he was appointed as Lab Attendant with effect from 13.12.1989, he applied for a technical post, i.e., Lab Technician attaching his qualification certificates as well as working experience wherein he indicated his qualification as B.Com with Economics and Statistics, Applied Economics and Finance and Business Administration. He was recommended for appointment as Lab Technician vide memo dated 24.07.2008. He was promoted to the post of Senior Technician with effect from 04.08.2013. He claimed that as per Rule-6 of Technical Service Rules of ICAR, the employees with five years service in Grade T-2 (Senior Technician) were eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade of T-3 (Technical Assistant). D.P.C. was convened but the respondent was not recommended on account of the fact that he had done B.Com. which was not the requisite qualification. On making representations, on 31.01.2020 he was informed with reference to a communication dated 21.11.2019 sent by ICAR that B.Com. does not qualify for recruitment/promotion under the functional group 'Laboratory Technician' as per the qualification prescribed by ICAR. Again on 31.03.2021, the Under Secretary, ICAR informed the Director of the Indian Institute of Seed Science, where the respondent was working, inter alia, indicating that the matter was examined in the Council sympatrically as a special case and it was decided that the applicant shall not be promoted further as per the provisions of TSR. On representation made by the petitioner, on re-examination on 13.01.2022, it was indicated that there was no change in the stand of the Council on the subject. Feeling aggrieved, the present OA was filed seeking to question the action of the respondents.
3. The OA was contested by the respondents therein. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondent was given first promotion on the post of Technician (T-I) and no objections were raised has as have been raised at the stage of third promotion. He was also given second promotion as Senior Technician and no objection was raised. The Tribunal has came to the conclusion that the mark-sheet reveals that the applicant completed B.Com. Degree with Economics and Statistics, Applied Economics and Finance and Business Administration and, therefore, the same would come under the category of Social Science degree holder which is one of the requisite qualifications, as indicated in communication dated 19.03.2019 and, therefore, action of the petitioners in denying the promotion to the respondent was not justified and, consequently, passed the order impugned.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the Tribunal has passed a very cursory order without looking into the material available on record and the requirements indicated therein. The submissions have been made that the respondent was initially engaged as Lab Attendant and while working as Lab Attendant, he applied for the post of Lab Technician where he was selected and he started working as Lab Technician, which appointment has been treated by the Tribunal as Promotion, which is factually incorrect. Further submissions have been made that the Tribunal has found that the respondent fulfils the requirement of Bachelor Degree in any other branch of science/social science relevant to agriculture and based on the communication dated 19.08.2016, wherein subjects under the term 'social science relevant to agriculture' for the purpose of promotion and recruitment to technical employees in Category-II and III were described. However, a reference to the respondent's mark-sheet, as produced, would reveal that though the Group of compulsory subjects is similar to those required under communication dated 19.08.2016, however, the subjects studied by the respondent did not fall under the said category and, therefore, the Tribunal fell in grave error in accepting the OA and, therefore, the judgment impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently defended the judgment impugned. Submissions were made that the petitioners, having accorded appointment to the petitioner as Lab Technician based on his qualification, could not deny promotion to the higher grades. Submissions have been made that the Tribunal has thoroughly considered the issue and, therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. The material produced on record as well as averments contained in Original Application clearly reveal that the respondent was initially appointed as Lab Attendant and thereafter he applied and was selected as Lab Technician. Therefore, apparently, the observation made and finding arrived at by the Tribunal by treating the appointment as Lab Technician as promotion from the post of Lab Attendant is factually incorrect. The communication dated 24.02.2006 (Page-143 of the paper-book) along with Annexure prescribes qualification for Functional Groups and in Group II, relating to Laboratory Technicians, in Category I, existing qualification, i.e., Matriculate with at least one year certificate from recognized institution in the relevant field was not changed and in Category II, which is subject matter of the present promotion, the requirement has been changed to 'Bachelor's degree in Agriculture or any other branch of science/social science relevant to agriculture or equivalent qualification from a recognised university'. The qualification of the respondent, admittedly is Bachelor Degree in Commerce (B.Com.) and, therefore, he is required to have the qualification which can fall in 'Bachelor's degree in social science relevant to agriculture'. The said aspect as to which subjects would come under the term 'social science relevant to agriculture' was approved vide communication dated 19.08.2016 (Page 147 of paper-book) wherein it was indicated that the following subjects would fall under the term 'social science relevant to agriculture' for the purpose of promotion and recruitment of technical employees in Category II and III:
(i) Economics
(ii) Statistics which includes all specialisation of the subjects
(iii) Agricultural Economics
(iv) Agricultural Extension
(v) Mathematics
(vi) Operational Research
(vii) Sociology and Social work
(viii) Home Science
(ix) Computer Science
(x) Mass Communication
(xi) Geography
(xii) Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA)
8. The term 'Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA)' was partially modified by communication dated 21.12.2016 (Page 150 of the paper-book) whereby the same was substituted by 'Business Administration/Management'.
9. The final year mark-sheet of the respondent (Page 208 of the paper-book), inter alia, reveals as under:
COMPULSORY SUBJECTS Elective Sub.
Grand Total of Marks obtained by the candidate Passed or Failed (P for pass, X for fail) Accountancy and statistics Group Applied Economics & Finance Group Business Administration Ad. Acctt.
Taxation Problems of Planned Development of India Currency and Banking Company Law and Secretarial Practice 100 36 100 36 100 36 100 36 100 36 500 180 76 39 40 58 43 256 P
10. A perusal of the above would reveal that the name of the groups have been indicated as Accountancy and statistics Group, Applied Economics & Finance Group and Business Administration. However, the papers cleared by the respondent are Taxation, Problems of Planned development of India, Currency and Banking and Company Law and Secretarial Practice. None of the subjects, wherein the respondent had passed the B.Com., finds mention in the subjects taken under the term 'social science relevant to agriculture' by communication dated 19.08.2016. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not justified in denying promotion to the respondent for lack of requisite qualification. The Tribunal, apparently, accepted the plea of the respondent based on the nomenclature of the Groups, which determination cannot be sustained.
11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.05.2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 107 of 2022 is quashed and set aside.
12. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 1.5.2024
P.Sri.
(Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)