Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition is filed by Technical Officers of the 2nd respondent aggrieved by the denial of fast track promotion as Scientist-B, despite the assurances made to them since the year 2009, following the pattern adopted in Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI).

2. Petitioners 1 to 8 are Technical Officers and the petitioner no.9 is a Herbarial Assistant working under the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent- the Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute ('JNTBGRI' for short) is a Research and Development (R&D) Institute under the 1st respondent Kerala State Council for Science Technology and Environment ('KSCSTE' for short). The 1st respondent is a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act, 1955 in the year 2002. Originally the 2nd respondent was under the control of Department of Science, Technology and Environment of the Government of Kerala. It was brought under the 1st respondent, along with 6 other research institutions including Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI). The service conditions of all these institutions are governed by KSCSTE Rules with effect from 19.06.2003.

3. The petitioners commenced their services as Technical Officers on various dates between 1995 and 1998. The Technical Officers in KFRI were granted promotion to Scientist-B category based on the decision of the State Council of the 1st respondent. The petitioners' grievance is that even though a decision was taken to give fast track promotion to technical officers of JNTBGRI as given in KFRI long back, that decision is not so far implemented. Petitioners submit that the State Council of the 1st respondent had in its Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 19.08.2009, as per agenda item no. 07.08, decided that the technical staff under the KFRI who meet the relevant requirements be promoted as Scientist B. Simultaneously, the AGM authorised the executive committee to decide such similar cases arising in other centres. The technical staff of the 2nd respondent requested for fast track promotion as Scientist B, as was being given in KFRI. The Executive Committee of the Council, in its 22nd meeting held on 17.08.2010, (Ext.P2 minutes) as per agenda item no. 22.23, authorised the Executive Vice President to examine the process adopted in KFRI in the matter of Fast Track Promotion of Technical staff and to decide the matter accordingly. As per order dated 04.10.2010, the KSCSTE constituted a committee to examine the request and to place proposal on it. The Committee consisting of the then Controller of Administration, a Scientist, who was also a member of JNTBGRI and the then Registrar of KFRI thereafter submitted Ext.P3 report recommending that the Technical Officers of JNTBGRI having the qualification, eligibility and experience for the post of Scientist B who were recruited before 19.06.2003, may be promoted to Scientist B category under fast track promotion scheme envisaged in G.O(P). No.82/99/STE|D dated 2.8.1999, subject to the following conditions:

13. Additional statement was filed by the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent thereafter stating that the KFRI had implemented the fast track promotion on the basis of Ext.P14 based on the norms specified in Ext.P23 order, in accordance with the conditions specified therein. One of the conditions was that the fast track promotion is applicable only to those employees who have the qualifications prescribed on the date on which the rules came into effect.

14. The 1st respondent KSCSTE, in its counter affidavit stated that the 7 research institutions coming under it are governed by KSCSTE Rules w.e.f 19.06.2003. All the 7 institutions were separate entities with their own service rules till the formation of KSCSTE. While admitting that while taking the decision to effect fast track promotion to Technical Officers in KFRI, the 7th AGM of the Council had authorised the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent to decide on such cases existing, in other R& D Centres, the 1st respondent admits that recommendations were placed by the committee constituted by the KSCSTE for fast track promotion of Technical Officers qualified as on 19.06.2003, after asessment by expert committee, on conditions regarding qualification, eligibility etc. specified by them. It is stated that eventhough the proposal to earmark a portion of vacancies of Scientists for promoting qualified and competent technical officers was approved, that decision could not be implemented for want of sufficient number of vacant positions in Scientist B Grade under the 2nd respondent since promotion to Scientist B Grade was already effected in JNTBGRI during 2010 based on directions of this Court. It is stated that the proposal on fast track promotion of the qualified technical officers of JNTBGRI and CWRDM to Scientist B Grade was submitted to the former Chief Minister, the then President of the 1st respondent Council, for orders in file no. 560/C2/2011/KSCSTE; the file was thereafter forwarded to the Finance (PUC) Department, on orders of the Chief Minister; the Finance Department, after examining it, retransmitted it to KSCSTE to obtain specific recommendation of executive committee and the matter was again placed before the executive committee as per agenda item 30.07, when it was decided not to approve the proposal in the present form and decided to refer it to the committe constituted to look into the modification of KSCSTE Rules and to call for the details of promotion effected in KFRI. Thereafter, the Executive Director of JNTBGRI forwarded a report on the representation of the employees congress for grant of one time fast track promotion to qualified technical officers, in tune with the recommendation of the committee constituted to study the proposal, to the Chief Minister. The file was circulated to the Chief Minister informing that there is no provision for fast track promotion as such and seeking permission for amending recruitment and promotion rules; the Chief Minister ordered to obtain details regarding the criteria adopted by KFRI to effect fast track promotion to technical officers; thereupon the original file pertaining to promotion of technical staff in KFRI was called for from the Director. But the same was not submitted. It is stated that as per the report of the 2nd respondent there were only 9 Ph.D holders, among the technical officers of JNTBGRI, qualified for the post of Scientist B and the matter was again placed before 36th executive committee when it was decided to have an interaction with the representatives of the technical cadre. It is admitted that the six member expert committee constituted as per order dated 20.07.2015 submitted their report after interaction with the officers and thereafter the Executive Committee decided to constitute a selection committee and the selection committee after asessment conducting interview, recommended placement of all the petitioners as Scientist B. It is stated that the 44th executive committee decided to refer the matter to State Council for appropriate decision since it involves category change and it causes additional financial burden. As some more candidates requested for category change, it was decided to consider them also after placing the matter before the State Council. Thereafter, the case of 4 more technical officers came up for consideration and as at present there are 13 technical officers from JNTBGRI and 2 technical officers from CWRDM with Ph.D aspiring to get fast track promotion.

21. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners had to withdraw the writ petition on the basis of the recommendations and assurance in Ext.P6. Even after they were found suitable for appointment by the assessment made by the expert committee, the action of the respondents in delaying the matter further is unfair and unjust. According to the petitioners, there cannot be any question of maintainability as far as the JNTBGRI is concerned.

22. On anxious consideration of the pleadings and contentions on either side, it is seen that the respondents initiated the process of considering the case of the Technical Officers like the petitioners right from 19.08.2009, while deciding on the implementation of fast track promotion in KFRI to the Technical Officers, authorising the Executive Committee of the 1st respondent to decide on similar cases in other institutions. It is an admitted fact that the fast track promotion is not covered by recruitment rules, even in KFRI, where it was implemented. Petitioners were assured such promotions on the basis of recommendations by various expert committees constituted for the same; they were found qualified and suitable after interview and assessment by selection committee consisting of large number of experts. Recommendations were made for such promotion in Ext.P6, on the basis of the current qualification of the Technical officers who were working in the 2nd respondent as on 19.06.2003. However, the version of the respondents in their statements/counter affidavit is, that the promotion is admissible only to those who acquired Ph.D even before 19.6.2003. This is contrary to the recommendations made by the expert committee. But the documents produced by petitioners as Exts.P17 and P18 would show that those who were benefited by Ext.P1 in KFRI acquired Ph.D only subsequently. According to the petitioners, there is no financial commitment involved, as petitioners are already drawing pay more than that admissible to Scientist B. All of them acquired Ph.D while in service. Unless they are inducted as Scientists B they would not be accepted as guides. It is their case that no separate post or vacancy is necessary in the category of Scientists B for fast track promotion as only an upgradation of posts occupied by them alone is necessary. By subjecting them to assessment and interviews coupled with recommendations to grant them fast track promotions, they had been legitimately expecting fast track promotion as done in KFRI. They even to withdraw the writ petitions filed by them in tune with one of the recommendations in Ext.P6. This process went on right from October 2010 and even after they were found eligible in all respects for the promotion by the selection committee it is being delayed by constitution of further committees on the ground of financial commitment, category change, other eligible hands who claimed subsequently, etc. According to the first respondent yet another high level committee was constituted on 17.02.2017 to look into their case. All these committees are seen constituted in the absence of provisions in the recruitment rules itself.