IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1797 of 2005(S) ------------------------- OA.230/2002 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ C.RAJENDRAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAYAN, T-II-3, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, MATSYAPURI, COCHI-29, RESIDING AT `RAGAM', H.NO.52/699, PRIYADARSINI NAGAR, KONTHURUTHY, THEVARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, MATSYAPURI, COCHIN-29. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 2/04/2008, THE COURT ON 11/4/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.230/2002 DATED 29.7.2004 EXT.P2-TRUE EXTRACT OF TECHNICAL SERVICES OF ICAR EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER DATED 15.12.2000 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.230/02 DATED 25.3.2002 EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OA NO.230/2002 DATED 9.7.2002 EXT.P6-TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA 230/2002 DATED 20.1.2004 EXT.P7-TRUE COPY OF OFFICE ORDER PART II 27-4/91-ADMN DATED 4.7.1992 // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.1797 of 2005-S - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The applicant before the Tribunal is the writ petitioner. The O.A. was filed challenging the order Annexure A3 by which the request of the petitioner to review the denial of promotion, was not accepted by the competent authority. In Annexure A3, he was informed that his request for re-assessment will be considered on the basis of the papers submitted by him for the period ending 2000. 2. The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and commenced service as Refrigeration Mechanic Grade T-2 in category I. The relevant rules of ICAR envisages career advancement by way of Merit Promotion from one grade to the next higher grade irrespective of occurrence of vacancies on the basis of assessment on completion of five years in the grade. On completion of five years in grade T-1-3 for the period ending on 31.12.1983, he was assessed and found fit for promotion. WPC 1797/2005. -2- Since there was no provision for assessment promotion from grade T-1-3 in category I to grade T-II-3 in category II, he was granted three advance increments in lieu of promotion. He was placed in grade T-II-3 in category II with effect from 1.1.1995. On completion of five years service in grade T-II-3 for the period ending on 31.12.1999, he was assessed for being considered for promotion to the grade T-4 in category II. The authority recommended only for two advance increments in the grade T-II-3 with effect from 1.1.2000. According to the petitioner, one member of the assessment committee, Shri P.N. Joshi, Scientist-in-charge of the Division was enimically disposed towards him. Subsequently he sought for a review of his yearly assessment which was rejected by Annexure A3. 3. The Tribunal found that there is no substance in the allegation raised by the petitioner against the competent high ranking officials. It was also found that apart from the bald and wild allegation that somebody was inimical towards him, the applicant had not been able to place any material to establish these allegations. In that view of the matter, the Original Application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the view WPC 1797/2005. -3- taken by the Tribunal is not correct. On the review sought, there was a favourable recommendation by the Committee, but the Director rejected the representation. 5. In the O.A., the main ground taken is that the new incumbent put adverse comments in the service records which prevailed over the assessment committee and there is reasonable likelihood of bias in the matter of assessment of the applicant. In any view of the matter, the Tribunal found that he could not establish that the officials concerned were inimical towards him. At any rate, it cannot be disputed that high ranking officials have gone into the assessment of the petitioner and did not find in favour of the case of the petitioner. No sufficient grounds have been raised warranting interference. Therefore, the bald allegation raised by the applicant in O.A. was not accepted by the Tribunal. We find no reason to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal. The petitioner has not established any grounds in support of the plea that members of the Committee were inimical towards him. The rejection of the application for review also cannot be held arbitrary or discriminatory. No attempt was made to establish the allegation of the WPC 1797/2005. -4- likelihood of bias also. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 1797/2005. -5- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C).No.1797 of 2005-S. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 11th April, 2008.