Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.4. It is submitted that the respondent CSIR-CLRI ought to have a supplied to him a copy of the APAR for the respective years, got his acknowledgement and asked for his comments. Such an exercise was not at all done by the respondent CSIR-CFTRI for the period 2012-13 & 2013-14 and CSIR-CLRI for the period September 2013 to March 2014 herein and it has resulted in great miscarriage of justice to the Applicant for the reason that he was not promoted to the next higher level of Principal Technical Officer / Sr. Superintending Engineer, Gr. III (7) on 20.08.2013 when he reached the zone of consideration.

2.5. The Applicant states that had the respondent CSIR-CLRI furnished the copy of the APAR for the respective years then and there, the Applicant would have had a chance to rectify the mistake if any that had occurred in performance of his duties and that he would have appealed to the 1st respondent herein against his APAR remarks who is the appellate authority.

The non-communication of the APAR for the respective years to the Applicant by the respondent CSIR-CLRI is a serious flaw in the promotion policy of the above said organization and the failure on the part of the respondent herein to do such an exercise but also the above action offends Article 21 relating to Right to Life which is enshrined under the above said Article since the Applicant was denied the benefit of holding the promotional post when he reached the zone of consideration. 2.6. The applicant was issued with the impugned order dated 28.4.2017 rejecting his request for promotion with effect from 20.08.2013 which was issued by the 3rd respondent herein. Since there was no further progress pursuant to his representation dated 02.08.2019, he filed O.A. No. 310/00173/2020 before this Tribunal. By order dated 5.2.2020 made in O.A. No. 310/00173/2020 this Tribunal disposed of the above O.A., with a direction to the competent authority, i.e., the first respondent to consider the representation of the applicant dated 02.08.2019 on the basis of the relevant rules and regulations and pass a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of four months. By an order dated 1.10.2020, the Applicant was informed that his request for promotion has been rejected. 2.7. The Applicant states that he was due for promotion to the next higher level post of Principal Technical Officer Grade (III) 7, and he came within the zone of consideration for the above post during the period 2016-2017. By order dated 3.5.2021, the Applicant was granted promotion to the above said post of Principal Technical Officer Grade (III) 7, the Applicant was granted the said promotion with retrospective effect from 20.08.2016 and his pay was fixed accordingly.

3.12. The Applicant vide his letter dated 10.12.2018 requested to permit him to be considered for assessment promotion and attend the interview for Assessment Year 2016-17 at CLRI. The Director, CFTRI acceded the request of Applicant and communicated the same to CLRI vide CFTRI letter dated 11.01.2019. The CLRI, in turn, communicated the same to the Applicant vide OM dated 18.01.2019. Further, the Applicant was asked to submit his Work Report for the AY 2016-17 as a 3rd chance vide OM dated 05.04.2021. The Applicant was assessed and promoted from STO (3) / Superintending Engineer to Principal Technical Officer / Senior Superintending Engineer, Gr. III (7) w.e.f. 20.08.2016 vide CLRI office order dated 03.05.2021.

7. On perusal of records, it is seen that the applicant was transferred to CSIR-CFTRI, Mysuru on his own request and that he worked there for little more than 7 years from 12.07.2006 to 30.08.2013. When he was due to promotion in 1st chance, ie., on 20.08.2013, his office ie., CFTRI, Mysuru circulated a list of Technical Officers due for assessment for the Assessment Year 2013-14 which included the name of the applicant and he was asked to intimate corrections / omissions, if any, before they are taken for assessment. The applicant did not submit any representation against the list and subsequently also attended the meeting of the Assessment Committee on 20.08.2013 and after due consideration, the Assessment Committee did not recommend his name as he failed to obtain threshold marks of 65% required for promotion for him. In the next year in his 2nd chance, he was asked to submit work report to CFTRI, Mysuru which has not been agreed to by the applicant. He requested for consideration of his work report in CLRI, Chennai which was not allowed by the competent authority as his reckoning period was under CFTRI, Mysuru. Further, the applicant gave a representation that due to his health conditions and his son's examination results, he should be allowed to submit his work report at CLRI, Chennai and attend the interview at CLRI, Chennai which has not been agreed to by the competent authority at CFTRI, Mysuru, but he was allowed to attend the interview through Skype / VC. The applicant, however, neither submitted his work report nor attended the interview. As a result, he was not selected in the 2nd chance. However, after being allowed by the competent authority, he submitted work report and attended interview at CLRI-Chennai and he qualified on his 3rd chance and got promoted at CLRI, Chennai. All these events would show that he has been given sufficient opportunity to submit his work report and attend the interview meetings. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has not been given enough opportunity and that there is violation of the principles of natural justice.