Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The petitioner's case was consequently deferred and he was considered for promotion by the Committee on 12.2.2016. The petitioner has been subsequently promoted as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2016. The dispute in the present case is, therefore, limited to the question whether or not the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2015 instead of his actual promotion from July, 2016.

5. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit, placing reliance on the criteria for considering promotions under the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS), that, once a candidate secures the rating of 'good', he is automatically entitled to be promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'; the External Screening Committee, having held that the petitioner had secured the ranking of 'good', had erred in recommending that his promotion be deferred for that year; this was beyond the powers of the Screening Committee; as such, the recommendation of the External Screening Committee is without jurisdiction; and this Court should issue a mandamus to the respondents to promote the petitioner as Scientist/Engineer 'C' from July, 2015.

7. The prescribed criteria for promotion under the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) is that the minimum residency period linked to performance, for promotion from one level to another i.e. from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', is 3 years . The petitioner had, admittedly, fulfilled this 3 year requirement when he was considered for promotion in February, 2015. The said criteria also stipulates that there shall be two levels of assessment, the first at the internal level for screening purposes and the next level assessment should have a majority of external members possessing expertise in the field.

9. Clause (v) stipulates that all scientists/ engineers, who are eligible according to the provisions of Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS) and meet the relevant benchmark, will be screened by Internal Screening Committee (ISC). The ISC will then evaluate the Annual Work Reports (duly filled up to Part B) of the Scientists/Engineers already screened, and report on the specific content of the work done by the respective Scientists/Engineers in Part C of the AWRs. The reports of the Internal Screening Committee in AWRs will have to be made available to the External Screening Committee.

12. In the light of the criteria specified in the Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme (MFCS), the mere fact that the petitioner secured the rating of 'good' did not mean that he was automatically entitled to be promoted to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'.

13. The fact, however, remains that the External Screening Committee had merely recommended that the petitioner's case be deferred. The appointing authority i.e. the Director was required to examine the recommendations of the External Screening Committee, and take a decision whether or not to accept such a recommendation. In the present case, the Director of the Institute has, admittedly, not undertaken any such exercise.