Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Krishna Mohan T R vs Nal on 1 June, 2023
1
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/01181/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON:20.04.2023
DATE OF ORDER: 01.06.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Krishna Mohan T.R,
S/o T.P.R Nambisan,
Aged about 63 years,
Retd. As Senior Scientist Rank-F,
CSIR Fourth Paradigm Institute,
National Aerospace Laboratories (Belur Campus),
Presently R/at No.162/1,
Basavanagar Main Road,
Bangalore-560037. ....Applicant
(By Advocate Shri K. Narayana)
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Ministry of Science and Technology,
Represented by its Secretary,
New Delhi.
2. Department of Science and
Industrial Research (DSIR),
Represented by its Secretary,
New Delhi-110 001.
3.Director,
NAL,
Old Airport Road,
Bangalore - 560 017.
4.Head,
CSIR Fourth Paradigm Institute,
NAL Belur Campus, WTC Road,
Bangalore - 560 037. ....Respondents
(By Shri K. Ananda, Counsel for Respondent)
2
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
ORDER
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
a) To quash the Notification dated 03-08-2011 (Annexure-A-7), vide which the Collegiums and Empowered Committee for performance mapping of the Scientists (PMS) in CSIR has been constituted.
b) To issue an Order of Mandamus to accord promotion to Applicant at "Rank H" and all other Consequential reliefs including payment of all the arrears Viz., monthly salary, statutory benefits etc.,
c) To issue an Order of Certiorari or any other Order Quashing the Endorsement dated 10.09.2018 bearing Ref.No.4PI/05(01)/2016 issued by the Respondents that he is "Not yet fit for promotion" at "Annexure- A-12".
d) To pass such other or further Orders or Directions as deemed fit under the circumstances and in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The facts of the case as pleaded by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant joined the services of the respondents as Scientist 'C' in 1990 by direct recruitment. He was subsequently promoted to the next higher level at rank E-I in the year 1995. Further the applicant was promoted to rank E-II in 2001. The applicant ought to have been 3 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench promoted to E-II rank in the year 2000. However, his promotion was delayed by one year for no valid reason. The applicant was next promoted to rank 'F' in the year 2009. The applicant was due for promotion to rank 'F' in the year 2006. Therefore, there was a delay of
3 years in his promotion to rank 'F' and if the earlier delay of one year in obtaining rank E-II is counted, there was a total delay of 4 years.
b) The applicant was working at State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNYAB) between 2002-2007. The respondents did not include two of those years in the residency period to compute for eligibility for promotion. There was a further delay by one year because he was awarded low performance scores annually. These low scores were awarded without consulting his supervisors in SUNYAB and, clearly with mala fide intentions because the administration knew that he was invited back by SUNYAB with higher salary after the first two years' stint there.
c) The respondents issued a Circular dated 04.01.2010 bearing Ref. no. 1- 5(1)/2008-RAB making amendment to rule 7.3 (a). As per 7.3(a) of CSIR Scientists' Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2001 (CSRAP 2001) only Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) used for personal/medical purposes will not be counted towards the minimum residency period required for assessment for promotion while EOL spent doing research would be counted. In the circular cited above, for unspecified reasons, they restricted the amount of EOL spent on research that can be counted towards minimum residency period, to just one year. 4
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Furthermore, they also allowed the Director the powers to decide whether the EOL can be counted towards assessment or not. Again, the benefit of one year was allowed only for cases of assessment falling due in assessment year 2008-09, i.e. only from 01.04.2008. In the Applicant's case, he went on EOL between 2004-2006. His assessment was due from 2006. In the case of the applicant CSRAP 2001should be the guiding criterion in this case. However, the revised rule was applied retrospectively in his case.
d) The respondents reconstituted another collegium & empowered committee through the Notification dated 3-08-2011 (Annexure A-7). The Notification issued has the same members in both the collegium and empowered committee whereas, both these bodies are not supposed to have the same members in as much as it would lead to vitiated & biased selection.
e) The Applicant filed O.A No. 170/00522/2016 before this Tribunal, wherein he sought for a relief to consider his promotion which was not given to him. The said application was filed by the Applicant before his retirement. The said Application was disposed vide order dated 02.08.2018 thereby allowing the said Application to the limited extent of directing the Respondents to consider his representation for promotion. This order was issued on the submission made by the Respondents that since the case of the Applicant was pending before the Committee, a Board will be convened and cases pending before 5 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench them including this Applicant's will be considered and orders will be issued.
f) The Respondents issued an Endorsement dated 10.09.2018 bearing Ref.No.4PI/05(01)/2016 informing the Applicant with an Endorsement that he is "Not yet fit for promotion".
g) Applicant sought a review of the Order dated 02.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal in O.A No.170/00522/2016. The Review petition came to be dismissed vide Order dated 25.06.2019 on the ground that if at all the Applicant is aggrieved by the compliance order passed by the respondents, the Applicant ought to have filed a Contempt Petition and not a Review Application.
h) Keeping in view of the liberty reserved to this Applicant in O.A No. 170/00522/2016 thereby permitting him to file a fresh petition/Application challenging the Endorsement that has been issued to him during pendency of the said O.A and communicated to him after the disposal of said O.A, the Applicant has filed this Application seeking to reconsider his case and quash the Endorsement dated 10.09.2018 bearing Ref.No.4PI/05(01)/2016 issued by the Respondents that he is "Not yet fit for promotion".
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) The Promotion of Scientists in CSIR, from one grade to next higher grade is governed by the provisions of CSIR Scientists Recruitment & 6 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 (CSRAP Rules 2001). The Assessment promotion is made on the basis of Flexible Complementing. The career progression of scientist from one grade to next higher grade is effected in-situ and the post held by him/her shall stand upgraded automatically as personal to the Scientist concerned.
There is no concept of seniority in respect of scientists of CSIR. The promotion is not based on merit cum seniority basis as alleged by the applicant. Prior to 01.01.2001, the assessment promotion of Scientists of CSIR was governed by the Revised Merit and Normal Assessment Scheme (revised MANAS) Rules 1991.
b) As per Rule 7.1 of the CSIR CSRAP Rules, 2001, promotions of all the Scientists shall be made on the basis of flexible complementing. As per Rule 7.2 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, the Promotions from one level to next higher Grade shall be made in 2 stages, as follows:
1st Stage: Screening of candidates by Internal Screening Committee to determine their eligibility for assessment. This is done in the Labs. Instts./CSIR Hqrs by an Internal Screening Committee constituted in terms of Rule 7.5.2 (for scientist upto the level of Principal Scientist) 7.5.3 (for Senior Principal Scientist) of the CSRAP Rules, 2001. The marks obtained by the candidates in their yearly Performance Mapping Scheme (PMS) (i.e., the annual performance appraisal) during their residency period in a grade are calculated and averaged out. Thereafter, their eligibility is ascertained with reference to the threshold marks in terms of Rules 7.4 of the CSSRAP 7 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench Rules, 2001. If the average marks obtained in the PMS for the residency period is equal to or more than the threshold marks specified in Rule 7.4 of the CSRAP Rules, then the candidate is recommended by the Internal Screening Committee for next stage of Assessment i.e., to be considered for assessment promotion by the Assessment Committee constituted by RAB.
2nd Stage Assessment of candidates by the Assessment Committee. This is done by the Assessment/Peer Committee constituted in terms of Rule 7.6.2/7.6.3 respectively, of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, wherein all the eligible candidates recommended by the Internal Screening Committee are assessed for promotion on the basis of Work Report submitted by the scientist containing the details of work done by the scientist concerned during the residency period, duly certified by the Director/Heads of the Lab/ instt. In cases of promotion from Senior Scientist to Principal Scientist, the candidates are also interviewed by the Assessment Committee.
The Assessment Committee/Peer Committee considers and assesses the work done by the scientist during the residency period on the basis of details given in the Work Report (and interview, in case of Senior Scientist to Principal Scientist). After assessing the work done by the Scientist, the committee in its collective wisdom, awards marks. If the marks obtained by the candidate is equal to or more than the threshold marks as given in Rule 7.6.5 of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, as amended vide CSIR Letter No.7-14(2)/2006-R&A dated 8 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench 12.03.2007, the Committee recommends the candidates as 'Fit for Promotion' and if the marks obtained is falling short by upto two marks for promotion, then the candidate is recommended for 'promotion deferred by one year'. If the marks obtained by candidate is below two marks of threshold marks, then the candidate is considered as "Not fit for promotion'. The Committee has the discretion to devise its own criteria to determine the suitability and merit of the candidates being considered by it for assessment promotion. The criteria are generally not recorded in the Proceedings of the Assessment/ Peer Committee, but the marks obtained by the candidate and the recommendations of the Assessment/ Peer Committee is recorded. The Assessment / Peer Committee is a high profile Committee consisting of experts in the broad area of the scientists concerned. The area wise Committee is common to all the candidates falling within the subject area. The assessment of scientists for promotion to their next grade is carried out by the CSIR-Recruitment & Assessment Board, New Delhi.
c) The applicant joined as Scientist on 31.10.1991 in the 4th Respondent Organisation i.e., the Scientist Group-IV (2). Thereafter, the applicant was promoted as Senior Scientist i.e., Scientist Group- IV (3) on 31.10.1995.
d) The next promotion of the applicant to the post of Principal Scientist was due on 31.10.2000 for assessment 2000-01. However, the applicant could not be promoted as the applicant did not meet the 9 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench required threshold marks and same was informed to the applicant vide O.M. dated 03.12.2001. Thereafter, the applicant got promoted to the post of Principal Scientist i.e., Scientist Group-IV(4) in the next assessment year 2001-2002 with effect from 31.10.2001.
e) The next date Assessment Promotion of the Applicant was to the post of Senior Principal Scientist was due on 31.10.2006. In the meantime, the applicant had availed the Ex-Ordinary Leave from 26.09.2005 to 15.07.2007 i.e., for a period of 1 year 9 months and 20 days to take up an assignment at Department of Physics, State University of Buffalo, USA. As per the Rule 7.3(a) of the CSRAP Rules, 2001, all periods of leave which count for earning increment, shall also count towards the minimum residency period. The period of EOL availed by the applicant was not counted for grant of increment. Hence, the due date of assessment promotion of the applicant was shifted from 31.10.2006 to 21.08.2008. However, the said Rule 7.3(a) of the CSIR SRAP Rules, 2001 was amended and in that regard, a circular was issued on 04.01.2010 and as per the amended rules, EOL granted for full time Assessment within Or Outside the Country shall also count for Assessment subject to a Maximum of 1 year. Further, as per the said Circular, the said benefit shall be admissible for the Assessment falling due from the Assessment year 2008-09. In case, the benefit falls before 01.04.2008, the same will not be considered and will be made effective only from 01.04.2008. Hence, as per the Amended Rules, the due date 10 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench of Assessment of the Applicant to the post of Senior Principal Scientist became due on 01.04.2008.
f) The applicant did not secure the required threshold marks as per Rule 7.4 of the CSRAP Rules 2001, hence, the Internal Screening Committee did not recommend the applicant for Assessment for the 1st chance in the Assessment Year 2008-09. It is submitted that, in the 2nd chance, the applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Principal Scientist i.e., Scientist-Group-IV (5) with effect from 01.04.2009.
g) The next date of Assessment of the applicant to the post of Chief Scientist (Scientist G) was due on 01.04.2014 (Assessment Year 2014-
15) for the 1st chance. The applicant did not secure the required threshold marks in terms of Rule 7.4 of CSRAP Rules 2001, and, therefore, his name could not be recommended by the Internal Screening Committee for assessment promotion in the Assessment Year 2014-15. Thereafter, the next due date of assessment promotion of the applicant for 2nd chance was due on 01.04.2015 (Assessment Year 2015-16). The Internal Screening Committee recommended the applicant for consideration by the Peer Committee, for Assessment Promotion. The Peer Committee after assessing, recommended that the candidate is 'Not yet fit for promotion' in the Assessment Year 2015-
16. The same was communicated to the applicant vide O.M dated 10.09.2018. The applicant, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired from service of the 4th respondent on 31.05.2016. It is submitted that, as per the provisions of the Rule 8.2 of the CSRAP Rules, the 11 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant was accorded the benefit of 3rd chance for Assessment Promotion and accordingly, the Peer Committee considered the applicant in the Assessment year 2016-17 due w.e.f 01.04.2016 and recommended that he is "Not fit for Promotion". The said decision was communicated to the applicant Vide O.M. dated 28.04.2020.
h) The Respondents considered the case of applicant for promotion as per the CSRAP Rules, 2001 and the applicant accepted the promotions and received the benefits of the promotions as and when granted as per the rules without there being any objections. As per the provisions of Rule 7.6.6 of CSRAP Rules, Scientist recommended by the Committee as FIT for promotion shall be so promoted from the due date of eligibility of assessment. Accordingly the applicant too has been granted promotion from his due date of eligibility, whenever the assessment/peer committee has recommended for his promotion. Therefore, there is no delay in granting the promotion as alleged by the applicant. However, whenever the applicant has not fulfilled the requisite criteria for grant of promotion, the applicant has been lawfully denied promotion. The main grievance of the applicant has been considered by the respondent Vide O.M. dated 8.10.2015 itself and the applicant did not challenge the said decision till today.
i) The recruitment to the post of Scientist H/Outstanding Scientist is governed by a separate set of rules, namely " Recruitment Rules 2008 for the post of Scientist H/Outstanding Scientist of CSIR" notified vide CSIR Letter No.5-1(62)/2008-PD dated 15.1.2009. The recruitment to 12 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench the post of Scientist H is carried out through direct recruitment only. And there is no provision for appointment by promotion from amongst the cadre Scientists recruited under Provisions of CSRAP Rules 2001. Therefore, the prayer of applicant to promote him to the post of Scientist H is not tenable.
4. The applicant has filed his rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents and has averred as follows:
a) The Applicant's promotion to Principal Scientist was due on 31.10.2006, which was postponed for the most unjust reason of EOL period not qualifying for residency period computation. CSIR's position on this matter was quite straight forward till 2002 in accordance with 7.3(a) of CSRAP Rules 2001 where "the period spent on deputation/foreign service to a non-scientific post and the period of leave including leave on medical grounds, EOL etc., availed on personal grounds shall not count towards the minimum residency period". In the earlier set of rules (MANAS between 1992-2001) also, the position was similar and was that "EOL granted for a full-time assignment within or outside the country would count towards minimum residency period".
b) However, after 2002 they changed the rules to 'All periods of leave which count for earning increments shall also count towards the minimum residency period". This clearly dis-qualified from minimum residency period all periods of EOL spent on full time assignment 13 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench abroad (where no salaries with increments would be applicable) doing R&D work.
c) Hence, it is just and necessary that natural justice be restored and the whole period of EOL be mandated to count towards residency period by amending the Rules accordingly.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
6. In the present case the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
a) To quash the Notification dated 03-08-2011 (Annexure-A-7), vide which the Revised Performance Appraisal System for CSIR Scientists has been constituted.
b) To issue an Order of Mandamus to accord promotion to Applicant at "Rank H" and all other Consequential reliefs including payment of all arrears Viz., monthly salary, statutory benefits etc.,
c) To quash the Endorsement dated 10.09.2018 bearing Ref.No.4PI/05(01)/2016 issued by the Respondents intimating him that he is "Not yet fit for promotion" (Annexure- A-12).
7. The applicant, in his pleadings, has also added another prayer for counting of the entire period for which he had availed EOL from 26.9.2005 to 15.7.2007 towards the minimum residency period required for his assessment promotion to the post of Senior Principal Scientist. 14
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
8. As far as the 1st prayer regarding quashing of the order dated 03.8.2011 is concerned, this prayer is time barred. The applicant is challenging the notification dated 03.8.2011 in this OA filed on 03.10.2019 i.e. after more than 8 years from the issuance of the impugned order. The applicant has not filed any application seeking condonation of any delay in the matter. Hence this prayer to quash the notification dated 03.8.2011 is marred by delay and laches and is time barred.
9. Moreover, this impugned order dated 3.08.2011, pertains to the composition of the Collegium as well as the Empowered Committees set up by the CSIR for the purpose of performance mapping of the Scientists (PMS) in CSIR required for assessment promotions under FCS. The applicant has challenged this order on the ground that some of the Members of the Collegium are also members of the Empowered Committee and the same is not permissible. However, a perusal of the guidelines issued by CSIR in this regard indicates that some of the scientists nominated to be members of the empowered committee are also members of the Collegium. Hence, the composition of the Collegium and the Empowered Committees are as per the guidelines issued by the CSIR in this behalf.
10. The 2nd prayer of the applicant is to seek an order of mandamus to accord promotion to Applicant to the post of Scientist - H. The respondents have stated that appointment to the post of Scientist -H is done through Direct Recruitment only and not through any process of promotion of any regular Scientist 'G' under the Flexible Complementing Scheme. This prayer of the 15 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench applicant is, therefore, clearly not admissible since it is in violation of rules governing appointment of Scientist - H in CSIR.
11. In the pleadings, the applicant has sought for counting of his entire EOL period to be admissible for assessment. He has sought this on the ground that prior to 2001-2002, in accordance with Rule 7.3(a) of CSRAP Rules, 2001, only the period spent on deputation/ foreign service to a non-scientific post and the period of leave including leave on medical grounds, was not counted for minimum residency period. He has contended that EOL availed for a full-time assignment within or outside the country should be counted for minimum residency period as per the MANAS rules between 1992-2001.
12. He has further contended that these rules were changed in 2002 and interpreted as follows:
'All period of leave which count for the earning increments shall also count towards the minimum residency period."
13. The applicant has contended that this rule has adversely affected him, since the period of EOL spent on full time assignment does not count for increment. This disqualified him from completing the minimum residency period required for his assessment promotion in the year 2006.
14. The facts reveal that at the time when the assessment promotion was due to the applicant, i.e., from 31.10.2006, the rules in force clearly provided that the period which is not counted for increments, shall not be counted towards the minimum residency period. Accordingly, the period of EOL from 26.09.2005 to 15.07.2007 (a period of 1 year 9 months and 20 days) availed 16 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench by the applicant which was not counted towards increment was not counted for the purpose of the minimum residency period required for assessment/promotion under the Flexible Complementing Scheme. Admittedly, there was a subsequent amendment to these provisions vide circular issued on 04.1.2010. As per the amended rules, the EOL granted for a full-time assignment within or outside the country was also counted for assessment, subject to a maximum period of one year.
15. The rules relating to not counting the period which does not count for increment, such as EOL, under the minimum residency period, were in place at the time when the applicant availed EOL from 26.09.2005 to 15.07.2007. Hence, it cannot be presumed that he was not aware, before proceeding abroad on EOL, that by availing EOL from 26.09.2005 to 15.07.2007, he will not be able to complete his minimum residency period, under the rules in force, in order to become eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of Senior Principal Scientist due to him from 31.10.2006. The pleading of the applicant at this stage that he should be allowed to count his EOL under the minimum residency period as per the older rules in force in 2001, cannot be countenanced. In any case, as clarified by the respondents in their reply, even when the benefit of counting his EOL upto a maximum period of one year was accorded to the applicant, it did not make any substantial difference, since the benefit was to be given effect only from 1.4.2008 and the due date of assessment of the applicant for the post of Sr. Principal Scientist was from 1.4.2008 only.
17
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
16. This specific issue regarding counting of his period spent on EOL abroad for the purpose of counting his assessment period for promotion under FCS to the post of Sr. Principal Scientist had also been considered by the respondents earlier and a detailed reply had been sent to the applicant by the respondents through OM No.10(21)/2015.SII dated 08.10.2015, in response to a representation made by the applicant for inclusion of his name in the eligibility list of Scientists for the Assessment year 2013-14.
17. The applicant chose not to challenge either the order dated 08.10.2015, or the fact that he was promoted to the post of Sr. Principal Scientist on 01.4.2008 only, after taking into account his revised assessment period on account of his availing EOL from 26.9.2005 to 15.7.2007. Hence, at this stage, this plea of the applicant to review his minimum assessment period by including the period of EOL availed by him is hit by delay and latches as well and cannot be countenanced.
18. The applicant was initially due for assessment for further promotion to the post of Chief Scientist (Scientist G) under FCS on 1.4.2014 (Assessment year 2014-15). However, he did not clear the required threshold marks prescribed under the Rules. Hence, his name was not recommended by the Screening Committee for assessment promotion in the assessment year 2014-15.
19. In the 2nd chance due on 01.4.2015 (Assessment year 2015-16) the internal screening committee recommended the applicant for consideration by the Peer Committee for assessment promotion. The Peer Committee after 18 OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench assessing, recommended that the candidate is 'Not yet fit for promotion' in the Assessment year 2015-16.
20. Subsequently, the applicant was granted a 3rd chance for assessment promotion. The Peer Committee considered the applicant in the Assessment year 2016-17 for promotion w.e.f. 01.4.2016 and again recommended that he was 'Not yet fit for promotion'.
21. The applicant retired from service on 31.5.2016. A copy of the proceedings of the Peer Committee Meeting for the assessment year 2015-16 was produced by the respondents. A perusal of the same reveals that the Peer Committee meeting took place on 07.3.2018 for the assessment year 2015-
16. The Peer Committee had awarded 75 marks to the applicant, whereas the required threshold required for promotion was 80 marks. Accordingly, the Peer Committee had recommended that the applicant is 'Not yet fit for promotion'. This was communicated to the applicant vide the impugned order dated 10.9.2018.
22. There are several judgements pertaining to the issue of judicial review of an evaluation arrived at by an expert body duly set up under rules.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UPSC v. L.P. Tiwari (2006) 12 SCC 317, has held that it is now more or less well settled that the evaluation made by an expert committee should not be easily interfered with the courts which do not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose.
19
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
24. In the case of Union of India & ors v. S.P. Nayyar, (2014) 14 SCC 370, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
"11. It is settled that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own, on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee."
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Ors. v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 434 as follows:
"9. it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinise the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc."
26. In Union Public Service Commission v. Hiranyalal Dev and others AIR 1988 SC 1069, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"5.........How to categorize in the light of the relevant records and what norms to apply in making the assessment are exclusively the functions of the Selection Committee. The jurisdiction to make the selection is vested in the Selection Committee........" 20
OA.No.1181/2019/CAT/Bangalore Bench
27. In the present case, the entire process for assessment for promotion under the FCS as provided by CSAR 2001 have been followed by the respondents. After due consideration, the applicant has not been promoted to the post of Chief Scientist (Scientist G), since he had been found to be short of the threshold marks as assessed by the Peer Committee. The committee had, therefore, recommended that the applicant is 'Not yet fit for promotion'. There appears to be no infirmity in the process and the same does not suffer from any procedural error.
28. Keeping the above facts in view, the present OA seeking quashing of order dated 10.9.2018 whereby the respondents have communicated to the applicant the decision of the Peer Committee that he is "not yet fit for promotion", cannot be countenanced. The Peer Committee has been duly constituted under the CSIR rules and is empowered to assess the candidates as per the prescribed procedure.
29. The OA is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
30. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/vmr/