IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6872 of 2007(S) ------------------------- OA.520/2003 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURAL SCIENTISTS' RECRUITMENT BOARD, KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BAVAN-1, PUSA GATE, NEW DELHI-110 012. 3. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DR.S.EDISON, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE, SC, ICAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DR.LILA BABU, SENIOR SCIENTIST CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SURABHI, T.C.9/342, PLAVILA ROAD, CHENTHI, PONGUMMOODU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011. ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 6872/07 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.520/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.520/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER TO REPLY FILED BY RESPONDENT IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.520/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.520/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.520/03 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP NO.21742/04. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6872 OF 2007-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 16th January, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.520/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondent was the applicant in that O.A. The applicant approached the C.A.T., feeling aggrieved by the denial of promotion to her to the post of Principal Scientist in the year 1998. Ext.P1 is the O.A filed by her. Annexures-A2 and A5 produced along with the O.A are the orders impugned before the C.A.T. By Annexure-A2 dated 3.8.2001, the applicant was informed that the competent authority accepted the recommendation of the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board not to promote her to the post of Principal Scientist with effect from 27.7.1998. Her representation against Annexure-A2 was rejected by Annexure-A5. She challenged Annexures-A2 and A5 on various grounds, including mala fide actions from the part of the Director of her Institute, the 4th petitioner herein. 2. The scheme governing the selection is contained in Ext.P2. The WPC 6872/07 2 method of selection provided in Ext.P2 for the post of Principal Scientist reads as follows: “2.4 Principal Scientist (Promotion): In addition to the sanctioned posts of Principal Scientists as per cadre strength already fixed, which is to be filled through direct recruitment through All India advertisement, promotions will be made from the posts of Senior Scientist to the posts of Principal Scientist after 8 years of service as Sr. Scientist. This promotion will be personal to the Scientist who is promoted. A Senior Scientist will be promoted to the post of Principal Scientist if he/she (i) has completed 8 years of service, and (ii) he/she presents himself/herself before the Selection Committee constituted by ASRB with some of the following: (a) Self appraisal reports (required) (b) Research contribution/books/articles/research papers published (c) Any other academic contributions. The best three written contributions of the Sr. Scientist (as defined by him/her) may be sent in advance to the experts to review before coming for the selection. The candidate should be asked to submit these in 3 sets with the application. (d) Seminars/conferences attended. (e) Contribution to teaching/academic environment/institutional corporate life. (f) Extension and field outreach activities.” 3. The respondents in the O.A., in their reply affidavit, stated that the Recruitment Board constituted as per the above scheme decided to earmark 50 marks for personal interview, 30 marks for research WPC 6872/07 3 publications/achievements and 20 marks for recommendations by the superiors. The cut off marks fixed for promotion was 60 out of 100. The Madras Bench of the Tribunal interfered with a similar selection, finding fault with setting apart 50% marks for personal interview. The said decision was affirmed by the Madras High Court also. It is common case that the matter is pending before the Apex Court at the instance of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Ext.P6 is the stay order granted by the Apex Court in that matter. 4. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [AIR 1987 SC 454], which was a case concerning direct recruitment from the open market to the post of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) by the Haryana P.S.C. It mechanically followed the decision of the co-ordinate Bench and allowed the O.A. It did not consider the various other contentions raised by the applicant. 5. We feel that the above decision of the Apex Court does not have any application to the facts of case. Ext.P2 scheme provides selection by the Board, before which the candidate has to appear with certain documents. The same would imply that the entire selection is to be based on the assessment of the candidate in the personal interview and also other relevant documents mentioned in para 2.4 quoted above. For avoiding WPC 6872/07 4 arbitrariness, the Board decided to allow marks for different heads and 50% of the marks were allotted for the interview. We find no illegality or irregularity in the said procedure followed by the Board. So, interference with the same, relying on the decision in Ashok Kumar Yadav's case (supra) is unsustainable. Therefore, Ext.P5 order of the C.A.T is set aside and Ext.P1 is O.A is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall call for the records connected with the selection and consider whether there was any irregularity in awarding marks. It shall also deal with the allegations of mala fides raised by the applicant against the Director of her Institute. It is clarified that if, in the meantime, the decision of the Apex Court comes and if there is anything in it contrary to our findings in this judgment, Tribunal must follow the directions of the Apex Court. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. Nm/