Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B Athiyaman vs M/O Science And Technology on 4 December, 2025
(OA No.624-2018)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.624/2018
Reserved on:25.11.2025
Pronounced on:04.12.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Sh. B. Athiyaman,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o S.V.Balakrishnan
R/o B-307, P.M.O.Apartment,
Sector-62, Noida, U.P. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr.Koshy Jacop)
Versus
Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Earth Science,
Prithvi Bhavan,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi. ...Respondent.
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
"(i) quash and set aside the action of respondent in not promoting the applicant to the level of Scientist G;
(ii) direct the respondent to consider and promote the applicant to the level of Scientist G and the promotion should be given w.e.f the date when his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits like salary, seniority etc;
(iii) May also pass any further order(s), direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice:"
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant after completion of his master's degree in Computer Application from Alagappa University, Karaikudi, Tamilnadu in the year 1998 completed his Doctorate degree from Indian Institute of Information Technology & Management, Gwalior in 2017.The aforesaid degree was obtained with due permission of the office of respondent. On 21.06.1990, the respondent issued a Notification for the post of Sr. Scientific Officer-II. Thereafter, the respondent issued an interview letter on 21.03.1990 to KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (2) the applicant for the said post. On 28.05.1990, following a selection process conducted by the respondent's office, the applicant was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer-II/Programmer against a Scheduled Caste vacancy. The respondent issued further Notification on 01.08.1990 for the appointment of the applicant on regular basis.
3. It is submitted that on 06.07.1995 the respondent issued promoting the applicant from the post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (NCMRWF) to Senior Scientific Grade-I (NCMRWP). On 07.11.2000, the respondent issued order promoting the applicant from the post of Scientist C to Scientist 'D' and on 16.09.2004 he was promoted from the post of Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'E' and again on 02.06.2010 he was promoted from the post of Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'F'.All the promotions of the applicant upto the level of Scientist F is under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS).
4. It is further submitted that for the purpose of governing promotion under FCS, based upon the recommendations of 6thCPC, the Department of Personnel & Training issued Office Memorandum dated 10.09.2010.As per the same, for the purpose of promotion from Scientist F to Scientist G, 5 years minimum residency period linked to the performance is required and as such, the applicant became eligible to be considered for promotion to Scientist G w.e.f. 01.01.2016. In terms of aforesaid Office Memorandum for the purposes of promotion from Scientist F to Scientist G, two level Screening has been prescribed namely "Level-1 Screening (Internal)" and "Level-II Screening (External)". It is submitted that in level-I Screening which is internal, ACR of the officer is considered for which, minimum benchmark for promotion to Scientist D and above has been prescribed as "Very Good" and thereupon, at the level-II Screening which his External, the constitution of the Assessment Board has been prescribed with the majority of External Members who possess expertise in the field. The ACRs of the applicant have been rated meeting the prescribed benchmark in various years to which, the details are as under:
"Year Grading by Grading by
Reviewing Officer Reporting Officer
01.01.2011 to Very Good Very Good
31.03.2011
KEDAR KEDAR RAM
2025.12.11
RAM 17:10:02+05'30'
(OA No.624-2018)
(3)
01.04.2011 to Very Good Very Good
31.03.2012
01.04.2012 to Very Good Very Good
31.03.2013
01.04.2013 to Very Good Very Good
31.03.2014
01.04.2014 to Very Good Very Good
31.03.2015
01.04.2015 to Very Good Very Good
15.10.2015
01.04.2015 to Very Good Very Good"
31.03.2016
Copy of the ACRs which are required to be considered by the level-I Screening Committee and it is submitted that even the ACR of the applicant for the year 2016-17 has been rated as "Very Good" at both the levels.
5. It is stated that the respondent issued a Notification on 18.03.2015 for the post of Scientist F/Scientist Gin the various Scientific Ministries/Departments and the applicant was called for the interview in terms of communication dated 15.12.2015 and thereupon, the applicant appeared before the Selection Board but he was astonished to see that there was no expert from the field of the applicant. The applicant was recruited with a Master Degree in Computer Application but it is learnt that there was no expert of Computer Application in the Assessment Board. The applicant was again called upon to participate in the interview on 15.11.2016 and 06.12.2017but there was no subject expert in the Assessment Board and applicant was not recommended.
6. Aggrieved, the applicant approached National Commission for Scheduled Caste by submitting a complaint dated 18.12.2017. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste issued a letter to the respondent to submit the report regarding the promotion of the applicant.
7. The respondents in their counter reply have stated that the Ministry of Earth Sciences has two cadres viz. Scientific and Administrative. Administrative Cadres are controlled directly by Department of Personnel & Training and Scientists in different grades are controlled by Ministry of Earth Sciences itself and the services of KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (4) Scientific grades (Scientist B, C, D, E, F &G) are governed as per notified Recruitment Rules, as amended from time to time. Presently, the services of scientific grades are controlled as per notified Recruitment Rules, 2012 for various grades of Scientists, including Attached and Subordinate Offices of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. Earlier Group 'A' Scientists were granted promotion (in-situ) in terms of Department of Personnel & Training guidelines on Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) contained in their OM No.2/41/97-PIC dated 09.11.1998 which, after 6th CPC, are now modified by DoP&T naming it as Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) vide DOPT OM No.AB-14017/37/2008-Estt (RR) dated 10.09.2010, issued detailed guidelines on MFCS (Annexure-II).
8. It is submitted that in-situ promotion is not vacancy based but is a merit based promotion. Therefore, a scientist cannot claim for time- bound in-situ promotion. On completion of prescribed residency and only after screening (Level-I) and assessment (Level-II) of the concerned scientist, if he/she is found fit for granting in-situ promotion he/she is granted promotion either from 01 January or 01 July every year, as the case may be. To find the suitability of a Scientist (Group 'A') for granting in-situ promotion to the next grade, necessary parameters have been fixed in each category of a Scientist. For in-situ promotion from the post of Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D', from Scientist 'D' to Scientist 'E' and From Scientist 'E' to Scientist 'F'; the following essential parameters are prescribed:
(1) From Scientist 'C' to Scientist 'D'
(i) 4-year residency period in the post of Scientist C
(ii) 4 APARs and all are having grading of 'Very Good' or above. (2) From Scientist 'D' to Scientist 'E'
(i) 4-year residency period in the post of Scientist 'D'
(ii) 4 APARs and all are having grading of 'Very Good' or above. (3) From Scientist 'E' to Scientist 'F'
(i) 5-year residency period in the post of Scientist 'E'
(ii) 2-year field experience [within the limit of 5-year residency period]
(iii) 5 APARs and all are having grading of 'Very Good' or above."
9. It is reiterated that the in-situ promotion is not vacancy based but linked to performance and therefore the grading earned in the KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (5) APARs and specific mention of meritorious work and publication of research paper in National/International Science Journals are though important for in-situ promotion, the performance of every Scientist is assessed annually (April-March) through his Annual Performance Assessment Report, which is an important document providing the basic and vital inputs for assessing the performance of the Scientist and for assessing his suitability for his further advancement in his career on occasions like confirmation, promotion, selection for deputation, selection for foreign assignment etc. Elaborating upon the process of performance appraisal, the respondent emphasizes that it is a tool for human resource development in order to enable a Scientist to realize his true potential. Thus the system of APAR has two principal objectives:
a) to improve the performance of subordinate in his present job.
b) to assess the potentialities of the subordinate and to prepare him through appropriate feedback and guidance for future possible opportunities in service.
10. It is further stated that the performance of Scientist is assessed by the Reporting Officer, who after completing his part of the Report, submits it to his own superior, known as the Reviewing Officer for review. The assessment of the performance of Scientist at two levels ensures a greater degree of objectivity and fairness. The officers at both Reporting and Reviewing levels supervise the work and conduct of the Scientist reported upon, before they can record their assessment on the performance of the Scientist.
11. The respondent underlines that the assessment of the performance of a Scientist at more than one level has been prescribed as a general rule with a view to ensure maximum objectivity. Therefore, if judgment of the immediate superior (Reporting Officer) can sometimes be too narrow and subjective to do justice to the Scientist reported upon, the Reviewing Officer exercises positive and independent judgment on the remarks of Reporting Officer. Further, the Reviewing Officer is also free to make his own remarks on points not mentioned by the Reporting Officer and thus the grading given by Reviewing Officer is taken as final. The service records of the applicant revealed that he joined Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi as Supervisor-B (Electrical/DPS/SD&A), a technical post with effect from 26.05.1989. Subsequently, he was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer Grade-
KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (6) II/Programmer (Equivalent to Scientist B) in NCMRWF, Department of Science & Technology w.e.f. 20.06.1990. Thereafter, he was appointed as SSO-I (Scientist C) on in-situ basis under FCS w.e.f. 01.07.1995 i.e. after rendering 5 years service as per FCS guidelines by DST, though he was eligible after rendering 3 years of service.
12. The respondent further submits that subsequently the applicant was appointed as Scientist D on in-situ basis under FCS w.e.f. 01.07.2000 i.e. after rendering 5 years service as per FCS guidelines by DST, though he was eligible after rendering 4 years of service. Thereafter, he was appointed as Scientist E on in-situ basis under FCS w.e.f. 01.07.2004 i.e. after rendering 4 years of service as per FCS guidelines by DST. In terms of Presidential Notification on Allocation of Business Rules (AoB Rules), the project office of NCMRWF was transferred from Department of Science and Technology to Ministry of Earth Sciences and applicant was, therefore, taken on the strength of Ministry of Earth Sciences w.e.f. 20.10.2006. The above in-situ promotion was done by DST. After taken on rolls of the Ministry of Earth Sciences subsequently, the applicant was appointed as Scientist F on in-situ basis under FCS w.e.f. 01.01.2011 i.e. after rendering 6½ years service as per MFCS guidelines, though he was eligible after rendering 5 years of service.
13. Respondent highlights that mere completion of residency does not make a scientist suitable for in-situ promotion under FCS/MFCS. DOP&T guidelines provide Departmental Peer Review Committee mechanism for assessment of Scientists to provide in-situ promotion to meritorious scientists with due emphasis on evaluation of Scientific and Technical knowledge so that only scientists who have to their credit demonstrable achievement or higher level of technical merit are only recommended for in-situ promotion without linkage to vacancy to boost their morale. The applicant was assessed for in-situ promotion to the grade of Scientist 'G' under MFCS and as per recommendations of DPRC and he was not found suitable and the recommendations of DPRC were accepted by Hon'ble Minister-in-charge. Aggrieved by the recommendations of DPRC, the applicant approached National Commission for Scheduled Caste (NCSC). The NCSC after personal hearing attended by Secretary, MOES directed to consult DoP&T regarding Inclusion of SC members in the DPRC inter alla directing to KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (7) submit Action Taken Report. The Ministry has submitted the ATR to the Commission on 8thAugust, 2018 and further direction, if any, are awaited from the Commission.
14. We have heard both the parties. The basic facts are not disputed. The learned counsel for the applicant based on the assertions made in the OA and rejoinder submits that the respondents have been unfair to the applicant as the applicant fulfilled the requisite criteria, including completing 5 years minimum residency period for assessment to the next grade. The applicant during the period 2011- 2017 (Scientific-F assessment period) has completed his Ph.D. from one of the best Institutes of HRD and he has published a large number of Research Papers in the International Journals which had impact value. The selection for promotions was to be made from amongst the scientific cadre officers serving in the next lower grade by the competent committee. Moreover, his service record has always been above par and he clearly meets the benchmark for being promoted under the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme for Scientists, in as much as the gradings given by the Reviewing as well as Reporting Officers from 01.01.2011 to 31.03.2016, i.e. the ACRs which are required to be considered by the Level-I Screening Committee are "Very Good" at both levels. Even ACR of the applicant for the subsequent period upto 30.09.2017 meets the benchmark.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, reiterates the contention made in the pleadings, asserting that grading of "Very Good" is minimum benchmark and the Assessment Board/DPRC rates the Scientist by considering the scientific content of the work, scientific articles published in the journal having impact factor, innovation of techniques/implementation of scientific project. Therefore, the possession of mere minimum grading of "Very Good"
which the applicant is harping on, will not necessarily lead to his promotion.
16. Learned counsel also submits that the committee after due consideration of his service record holistically, took an objective decision and therefore it does not attract the intervention of the Tribunal as there was nothing to suggest that the decision-making process suffers from any lacuna.
KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (8)
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant re-asserts the applicant's claim for promotion especially on the following grounds:
(i) The Annual Confidential Records of the applicant as graded by Reporting and Reviewing Officers are "Very Good".
(ii) The applicant was only officer had the qualification in the MOES (during 2006-2017) Degree, Master Degree and PhD in Computer Science/Applications.
(iii) The applicant had published around 30 (Thirty) National/International Scientific Papers.
(iv) The applicant had received prestigious UNDP AWARD in 1995.
(v) The applicant had received around 15 National and International Awards.
(vi) The applicant was only candidate in the MOES has the Doctorate Degree in Computer Science (Research Topic: Development and Validation of Model for Rainfall Prediction: A case of Indian Continent"
Completed 2017.
(vii) During applicant's evaluation (FCS Interview board) he had answered all the questions satisfactory level of the members of the committee)
(viii) The applicant had organized many national and international conferences and workshops.
(ix) The applicant had acted as Chairman as well as Member of many scientific committees in NCMRWF and other Scientific Organization like NIC and CDAC.
(x) The applicant had not received any reason or communication from the department for denial of his promotion (first, second, third attempt of Sc-G level).
18. As per the direction of the Tribunal dated 07.03.2025, learned counsel for the respondents also produces Minutes of the Departmental Peer Review Committee held on 6th December, 2017 wherein the case of the applicant for upgradation under MFCS of Scientist 'F' to 'G' was considered.
19. We have perused the Minutes dated 28.11.2016 and 06.12.2017 wherein the Committee noted that the Scientists figuring the list including the applicant had the minimum residency period of 5 years required for promotion under MFCS from Scientist 'F' to Scientist 'G' and he was recommended by the Screening Committee. The Committee noted that Scientists recommended by the Screening Committee, including the applicant had the requisite field experience as prescribed in the MFCS Guidelines/Instructions. The Committee also considered the qualifications, self-assessment, confidential reports and field experience and after having discussion wrote "Not Recommended" against the applicant.
KEDAR KEDAR RAM 2025.12.11 RAM 17:10:02+05'30' (OA No.624-2018) (9)
20. We also find that the similarly placed candidates at Sl.No.3, who 6 years of experience and required 5 Very Good and achieved 6 Very Good as the applicant, and another candidate at Sl.No.4 who had earned 5 "Very Good" were recommended. Thus in terms of the appraisal gradings, qualifications, self-assessment, confidential report or field experience, applicant was not found lacking. In fact, his ACR for the subsequent 6th year, beyond the stipulated five year period was also 'very good'. Thus the reason for his exclusion/not recommending him is not clear. Perusal of the minutes of the meetings does not indicate any detailed consideration and deliberation which lead to inclusion or exclusion of the candidates. It is also evident that omnibus categories like "recommended" or "non-recommended" have been used, but we do not find even a brief recording of "reasoned" view justifying the decision taken, as clear from various minutes of Peer Review Committee meetings. A non-speaking and cryptic view on recommendation without reflecting if the Committee had taken into account the relevant facts/documents based on which such decision was taken, does not withstand the test of objectivity and transparency. At the same time, absence of a reasoned and speaking consideration puts question mark on the decision making process and leaves room for allegations of bias and malice. Therefore, it will be in the fitness of things if the applicant's case is re-considered by the appropriate committee again and a reasoned and speaking order is passed for the decision taken on his suitability or otherwise.
21. In view of the above discussions, without going into the merits of the case, we remit the matter to the respondent to consider the case of the applicant holistically, without getting affected by the earlier minutes/decisions and pass a reasoned and speaking order. We also direct the respondents to comply with the aforesaid direction within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Related applications, if any, also stand disposed off. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/kdr/
KEDAR KEDAR RAM
2025.12.11
RAM 17:10:02+05'30'