Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Reliefs (i) to call for the records of the case and quash and set aside the impugned action of the Respondents in canceling the selections for the post of Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI, Karnal conducted in pursuance of ASRB Advt. No.03/2010, item No.135;
(ii) to direct the Respondents to finalize the selections already made by ASRB on the basis of interviews conducted on 21.10.2010 and to issue the appointment/offer letter to the selected candidate, i.e., the Applicant;
(iii) to direct the Respondents to consider appointing the Applicant to the post of Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI, Karnal as on the back date along with all consequential benefits arising therefrom including the costs of this application; and

6. The appointing authority consider its recommendations. They are formally accepted or rejected. In the case of the Applicant, the Union Agriculture Minister who is also the President of ICAR is the competent authority.

7. They have also stated that certain senior scientific positions are filled up on tenurial basis for a period of 5 years. The positions of Heads of Divisions in the various ICAR institutes is one such position. On completion of the tenure, the incumbent could get selected again on regular basis through ASRB. The issue in the instant case is concerned with the filling up of one such position, namely, Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI, Karnal. The earlier incumbent of this position was Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta who was appointed for a full tenure of 5 years w.e.f. September, 2005 to September, 2010. When Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta was selected in 2005, the Applicant was also one of the candidates for the said post and he had filed OA No.854/HR/2005 before the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal for setting aside her selection and the Chandigarh Bench, after considering the issue in detail, dismissed the same. After the completion of her tenure, Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta, the post of Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI fell vacant and the ASRB advertised it along with various other posts. 8 candidates including Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta and the Applicant have applied. The ASRB has called 7 of them for interview, The ASRB recommended the name of the Applicant and the said recommendation was received in the ICAR and the same was being processed for approval of the Competent Authority. In the meantime, a written complaint/representation was received from Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta. She alleged in her representation that some scientists have scored disproportionate or excessive marks in Part-B of the application form. She has also alleged that the Applicant had litigated against her original selection and, therefore, he is not a better scientist. She has also alleged that the Director of the Institute was biased. The said complaint/represent was examined in ICAR and it was observed as under:-

11. Even though the Government is not required to follow the aforesaid procedure in the case of not accepting the recommendations of the UPSC in the case of not accepting the recommendations of the ASRB, there is an obligation upon the Appointing Authority to give leally acceptable reasons to reject the recommendation. According to Rule 26 of the ICAR Rules, the ASRB is an independent recruiting agency and it is responsible for recruitment to posts in the Agricultural Research Service and to such other posts and services as may be specified by the President from time to time. Therefore, its recommendations cannot be rejected on any flimsy grounds. But from the facts of this case, it is quite evident that the recommendation of the ASRB to appoint the Applicant to post Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI, Karnal was rejected for extraneous considerations and the reason given for doing so was also absolutely flimsy. The Interview Board headed by the Chairman, ASRB interviewed 6 candidates for the aforesaid post on 21.10.2010 and assessed them on pre-determined parameters and the Applicant was adjudged to be the best among them all. The performa used by the Interview Board for selection to the aforesaid post is reproduced as under:-

(3) But the omnibus and wild allegation of bias against the DGs nominee without any specific or concrete material evidence by the representationist cannot be given any weightage at this stage. Usually, such unsuccessful applicants have resorted to such allegations in other instances also.

12. Accordingly, the aforesaid recommendation of the ASRB was decided to be placed before the appointing authority who is Minister concerned for acceptance. But for whatever reason, the complaint made by Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta was again ordered to be examined at the level of Additional Secretary, DARE. Accordingly, again the matter was re-examined and again clarified that there is no provision or precedent to review any recommendation of the ASRB. The recommendations are accepted or rejected with justifications by the Competent Authority, i.e., the Honble AM and President, ICAR Society. As there was no good and sufficient reasons to review the recommendation of the ASRB, some of the officials in Respondents came out with strange reason that Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta will approach court in case Dr. Khajan Singh is appointed. As the DG, ICAR was not satisfied with the aforesaid course of action, he has desired to obtain the detailed comments from ASRB. After examining the complaint of Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta in great detail, the Director, NDRI informed the ICAR that the points raised by Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta in her representation are totally wrong, far away from facts, baseless and twisted to get undesired favour for her selection as HOD Dairy Extension Education Division, NDRI. Meanwhile, Dr. (Mrs.) Jancy Gupta approached the National Commission for Women and Dr. Khajan Singh approached the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste observed that the ASRB has already recommended the Applicant for the post of Head, Division of Dairy Extension, NDRI, Karnal and as decided the ICAR may resubmit his case to the ASRB for review and issue necessary order thereafter. The directions issued by them to the Respondents reads under:-