Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Satyprakash Patnaik vs M/O Defence on 2 September, 2024
OA/113/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/20/0113/2016
HYDERABAD, this the 02nd day of September, 2024
Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Ms. Shalini Misra, Administrative Member
Satya Prakash Pattanaik, S/o Late Rama Chandra Pattanaik,
Age 45 yrs, Occ: Jr. Scientific Officer, AMPS (Pension),
42 building Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam,
R/o D.no. 39-13-26/2, Sai Prakash Residency
Behind Ramalayam, Muralinagar Visakhapatnam-530 007.
... Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mrs. Anita Swain)
Vs.
1. The Union of India Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence South Block, New Delhi-110011.
2. The Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions,
Dept. of Personnel and Training Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block New Delhi-110 011.
3. The Chief of the Naval Staff (for Directorate of Civilian Personnel)
Integrated Headquarters, Min. of Defence (Navy). D-II wing, Sena
Bhavan New Delhi-110011
4. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (for SO [CP]) Headquarters,
Eastern Naval Command Visakhapatnam-530 014
5. The Admiral Superintendent Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam-530 014.
6. Rajesh Chandwani, S/o not known Occ: Principle Scientific Officer
O/o Directorate of Indegenisation 5th Floor, Chanakya Bhawan,
Chanakyapuri New Delhi.
7. Shri S Jagadeesh Kumar Occ: Principle Scientific Officer Central
Dockyard Laboratory Building No. 43, Naval Dockyard,
Visakhapatnam-148.
Page 1 of 9
OA/113/2016
8. Shri P. K. R Kanthaiah, Junior Scientific Officer Naval Aviation
Quality Assurance Services Southern Naval Command Kochi-682
004, Kerala.
9. Shri Ravender Junion Scientific Officer Electrical Laboratory, Indian
Naval Academy INS Ezhimala, PO Ezhimala, Kerala.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. A Radhakrishna, Sr. PC for CG,
Mr. M Hara Bhupal & Mr. G Jaya Prakash Babu)
----
Page 2 of 9
OA/113/2016
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member) Heard Mrs. Anita Swain, learned counsel, appears for the applicant and Mr. A Radhakrishna, learned counsel, appears for the official respondents & Mr. M Hara Bhupal, learned counsel, appears for respondent no.6, 7 and 9 and Mr. G Jaya Prakash Babu, learned counsel, appears for the respondent no.8.
2. By this Original Application the applicant is seeking the following relief(s):
"to...(i) call for the record from the official respondent, the promotional order of respondent No 6 and 7 dated 12.5.2015 so far as Principal Scientific officer and Senior scientific officer -II dated are concerned, and declare the same is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and contrary and not conformity with statutory rule SRO 89/2003 and quash the same by not considering the eligibility of applicants for the post of Senior Scientific officer -II in accordance with the SRO is illegal arbitrary and voilative of Article 14,15, 16, 21 and 309 of the constitution of India and consequently
ii) to direct the respondents to review the DPC and promote the applicant to the post of Senior Scientific Officer -II as per the SRO 89/2003 with all consequential benefits as per his suitability and eligibility and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case in a nutshell are as under:
The applicant was appointed as a Junior Scientific Officer on 15.04.2009 under SRO 89/2003 under direct recruitment quota. On completion of 03 years on 15.4.2012, after attaining suitability while he was waiting for promotion, though he was in zone of consideration for the post of SSO-II, the official respondents, contrary to the recruitment rule, Page 3 of 9 OA/113/2016 appointed other candidates who did not even possess the education qualification, thus enblocked the promotional avenue of the applicant. Since 2013 to 2015, no DPC was conducted by stating that no vacancy existed for the post of SSO-II. Contrary to the recruitment rule, the respondents promoted respondent no. 6 and 7 to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (PScO)and filled 02 vacancies, enblocking the promotional avenue of the applicant and other ineligible candidates by violating the statutory rule SRO 89/2003. Therefore, the applicant submitted representations on dated 09.06.2015 and 08.10.2015, but no action was taken till date. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the present OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief(s).
4. After notice, the official respondents have appeared through their counsel, filed a detailed reply and opposed the relief on the ground that as per SRO 89/2003, the educational qualifications required for promotion to the grade of PScO is the same as prescribed for Direct Recruitment to the grade of JSO. The qualification prescribed for JSO (DR) is as under:-
(a) Master's degree in Physics with Electronics as a subject or degree in Telecommunication Engineering of a recognized university or equivalent OR
(b) Master's degree in Physics or Chemistry with specialization in Spectrography of a recognized university or equivalent.
OR
(c) Master's degree in Physics/Chemistry or degree in Mechanical Engineering of a recognized university or equivalent.
Further, Shri Jagadeesh Kumar, i.e Respondent No. 7, possesses the minimum qualification required for consideration for promotion as per Para 7(c) above, i.e., a master's degree in Physics with the added qualification of Industrial Electronics and Shri Rajesh Chandwani, i.e. Respondent No. 6, is possessing the qualification equivalent to that which is prescribed at Para Page 4 of 9 OA/113/2016 7(a) above. As evident from the above, candidates with an M.Sc. degree in a particular subject and also candidates with a B.E. degree in the same discipline are considered eligible for direct recruitment for the post of JSO. The respondents' counsel further submitted that Shri Rajesh Chandwani, i.e. Respondent No. 6, was directly recruited through UPSC as SSO-I as per the qualification prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the post of SSO-I. The candidate possessing the qualification as B.E (Electronics) and SSO-I grade is the promotional grade of SSO-II, which is the promotional grade of JSO. Hence, the qualification which has been considered appropriate for direct recruitment for higher grades in a hierarchy of posts cannot be considered inappropriate for the feeder grade. On similar grounds, the candidates who are in possession of higher qualification than the minimum qualification prescribed for a post were considered for promotion by the UPSC in various grades of Scientific Officers in the past. Hence, UPSC has considered both the candidates as eligible for promotion in accordance with SRO 89/2003 and the contention of the petitioner, is not correct. In fact, any promotion in the higher grade will pave the way for promotion of incumbents of the lowest grade in a hierarchy of posts. In the instant case, 02 vacancies of SSO-I were created due to the promotion of 02 PScOs, due to which a vacancy of SSO-I under DP quota was created, leading to the promotion of 01 SSO-II to the grade of SSO-I (Smt JD Asthaputre). This has also created a chain vacancy in the grade of SSO-II. Hence the averment of the applicant is untenable.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that since the private respondents from Sl. 6 to 9 have equivalent qualifications, the Page 5 of 9 OA/113/2016 same have been considered by the UPSC at the time of their initial recruitment and appointment and the same cannot be questioned and the same qualification has to be considered for the said promotional post. The respondents' no. 6 to 9 are otherwise fulfilling all criteria of qualification and they are two stages senior to the applicant. The applicant is not even under the zone of consideration and he cannot challenge the promotion, which has been issued to the respondents' no. 6 to 9. Therefore, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
6. Mr. Hara Bhupal, learned counsel, represented private respondents, i.e., respondents no. 6, 7 & 9 and also opposed the relief on the ground that they were recruited with the said qualification in the services and subsequently, since they are coming in the zone of consideration followed by the service rendered by them as they are fulfilling the entire criteria to be promoted them to the said promotional post. The respondents' counsel further contended that the applicant, who is much junior to these respondents, has to reach two stages further to compare himself at par with these respondents. He is otherwise not qualified to be considered for the said promotional post, though he fulfils the only educational criteria. Respondent no. 8 is also represented through his counsel, who reiterated the fact that as he fulfilled all criteria and the same was considered by the UPSC at the time of recruitment. Thereby, considering the equivalence of their qualifications, they have been given the appointments.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
Page 6 of 9
OA/113/2016
8. The learned counsel for the applicant is relying upon the SRO- 89/2003. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, none of the private respondents from Sl. 6 to 9 are fulfilling the qualification prescribed for JSO (DR), which is a basic qualification as it will be considered for the promotional post too. According to him, none of the respondents have the degrees which are required under the essential qualification.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents department vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that the averments made by the applicant are not true. The promotion is granted on fulfilling the eligibility criteria in accordance with Recruitment Rules relevant to the post and subject to availability of vacancies. The applicant is holding the grade of Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), which is the feeder grade of Senior Scientific Officer Grade II (SSO-II). On the contrary, the applicant is questioning the promotions of SSO-I to the grade of Principal Scientific Officer (PSCO), who were promoted on the basis of recommendations of the DPC held by UPSC, duly following the Recruitment Rules. In fact, the promotion of 02 SSO-I to the grade of PSCO led to the occurrence of vacancies in the grade of SSO-I resulting in further chain vacancies in the grade of SSO-II.
10. The learned counsel for the private respondents' no.6, 7 and 9 also contended that the said respondents' qualifications have been considered by the UPSC as an equivalent qualification and accordingly, they have been recruited for the initial appointment. Further, these respondents' are much senior to the applicant. Moreover, the applicant did not challenge the said Page 7 of 9 OA/113/2016 seniority list. Therefore, the applicant cannot claim the said promotion on the wrong footing.
11. Mr. G Jaya Prakash Babu, learned counsel, appears for the private respondent no.8 He reiterated the submissions made by the other private respondents' counsel and submitted that respondent no. 8 is also fulfilling the criteria. Accordingly, his case has been considered by the DPC and he has given the promotion.
12. It is not in dispute that the draft seniority list was published, wherein the respondents no. 6 and 7 have been placed at Sl. 1 and 2 with their qualifications, that were considered by the UPSC at the time of recruitment, as well as the respondents no. 8 and 9, are also on the said draft seniority list placed at Sl. No. 6 and 8 and the applicant's name has been placed at Sl.
9. The respondents' No. 6 to 9 were appointed in the services under the direct recruitment in May, April, 2006, May, 2008 and March 2009. Admittedly, the applicant who entered into the services on 15.04.2009, is much junior to these respondents. The respondents who were holding post of Senior Scientific Officer Grade I (SSO-I) are two levels above the applicant and they are eligible to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (PSO), the highest grade in the cadre, whereas, the applicant is not eligible unless he earns two promotions. As such, the applicant does not have any locus standi to challenge the said promotions of the respondents' no. 6 to 9 to the post of Principal Scientific Officer (PSO). The applicant is working as a Junior Scientific Officer (JSO) at the time of filing of the OA, which is the lowest grade in the scientific cadre in the Indian Army. Moreover, the Page 8 of 9 OA/113/2016 respondents' qualification has been declared equivalent by the UPSC, followed with the Government of India Gazette notification. There is no need at all to file any such separate certificate by any of the respondents. As such, we do not find any merit in the matter. There is no locus standi for the applicant to challenge the promotions of the respondents no.6 to 9.
13. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.
(SHALINI MISRA) (DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/SB/
Page 9 of 9