IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 37900 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.599/2006 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER: P.SHANKAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.P.PEERAJI, T-4, (HINDI TRANSLATOR) CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN-29, RESIDING AT CIFT QUARTERS NO.3/20, THEVARA, COCHIN-15. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SMT.R.R.REJITHA SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, WILLINGDON ISLAND, MATSYAPURI P.O., COCHIN-29. 3. DR.JESSY JOSEPH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (OL) CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN-29. 4. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN-29. ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1,2&4 SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO FOR R1,2 & 4 SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH FOR R1,2 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.8.2011, THE COURT ON 30/09/2011, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 37900/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, IN O.A. NO. 599/06 DATED 27TH AUGUST, 2008. EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.599/06 DATED 13TH AUGUST, 2006, WITH ITS ANNEXURES FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVIE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 21.11.2006 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 599/06. EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 8.2.2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 599/06. EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 25.3.2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.A. NO. 599/06. EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.7.2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A. NO. 599/2006. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAST PAGES OF THE DIARY FOR THE PERIOD FROM 21.2.2002 TO 06.03.2002. EXT.P7(a) A TRUE TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P7. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1 TRUE COPY OF AN ABSTRACT FROM THE CLASSIFICATION OF TECHNICAL POSTS IN TO VARIOUS GROUPS UNDER TECHNICAL SERVICES RULES OF ICAR. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE KNC/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) 37900 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T P.S. Gopinathan, J. Petitioner is the applicant in O.A.599 of 2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. Petitioner entered the service as Hindi Translator on 15.4.1996 with a pay scale of Rs. 4500- 7000 under the second respondent which is an establishment under the first respondent. At the time of appointment, Hindi Translators were classified as auxiliary. Later, with effect from 29.6.1996 it was treated as technical service. As per rules applicable to technical service, the next promotion on the basis of assessment of performance would become due on expiry of five years. Though the petitioner, according to him, had become entitled to promotion as on 29.6.2001, the selection committee, despite the entitlement of the petitioner for promotion, recommended to grant only three increments as per Annexure A1 order produced before the Tribunal. Having felt aggrieved, petitioner made ever so many representations. Thereafter, a W.P.(C) 37900/2008 2 review was conducted; but the respondents were not pleased to grant promotion. Finally, the representation was rejected by the 4th respondent. Assailing the order rejecting the representation, petitioner moved the Tribunal below with the above application. By order dated 27.8.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Assailing that order, this petition was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. We have heard either side and perused the order impugned as well as the records. 3. It is not disputed that the promotion is not automatic, but shall be on the basis of the assessment of performance. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had prescribed bench mark entitling him for promotion. The review committee was headed by C.V. Rajan Pillai, who is only an Honorary Professor of Department of Communication and Information, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. Sri. A.G. Radhakrishnan and Sri. Unnikrishnan Nair, Principal Scientists, who were members, were dealing with fisheries. They had no knowledge or expertise in Hindi language or translation. Neither they are aware of the duties and responsibilities of the Hindi translator. The review committee grossly erred in upholding the decision of the Selection Committee. Going by the materials on record, we find that the selection committee and the review W.P.(C) 37900/2008 3 committee had taken note of the annual confidential reports for the year 1997-98, 1998-99, and 2000-01 and review report for 1996-2001. Following are the annual confidential reports for the three years. 1997-98: Functions "He is learning" Quality of Technical Achievements: He is advised to improve the knowledge in the source of language, especially scientific and he is trying. Remarks about Meritorious work: Nothing meritorious work done by him has come to my notice. 1999-2000 Has the Officer any special characteristics, or abilities which would justify his selection for special assignment or out of turn promotion? 'Nothing specific' 2000-2001 Overall assessment of the officer .. "Tone of the conversational language is to be improved, so that smooth functioning will be more easier in the section." Has the Officer any special characteristics, or abilities which would justify his selection for special assignment or out of turn promotion? NIL. The review report for the period from 29.6.1996 to 28.6.2001, copy of which is produced as Annexure R3 is as follows: “Discharges duties at his pace and manner W.P.(C) 37900/2008 4 and avoids diary writings. .................................................... He just completes work assigned to him and not bothered about the correctness, quality and presentation. He is not applying his mind in the implementation point of view.” Having gone through the annual confidential report and the review report for 1996-2001 quoted above, we find that there is nothing to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above annual confidential reports or review reports were not communicated to the petitioner and therefore, no reliance can be given to it. We find that no such argument was advanced before the Tribunal. Therefore, that argument is devoid of merit. It is not in dispute that the assessment of performance for promotion shall be based on the basis of discharge of duties which shall be borne out by the annual confidential reports. Emphasis shall be given to the contributions and achievement of the individual in relation to the requirement of the job and duties assigned to the post for which he was recruited. The selection committee is the competent authority to assess the same basing upon the annual confidential report. Neither the Tribunal nor this Court can sit in judgment over the decision of the selection committee or review committee. It is also not disputed that the chairman of the selection committee was an outsider and W.P.(C) 37900/2008 5 he has no ill-will or malice against the petitioner. True that the petitioner has got a contention that he was not an expert in Hindi translation. We find no merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in that aspect because the selection committee is not physically assessing the performance of the incumbent. It is not at all necessary that the selection committee shall be headed by a person who has special knowledge in the subject. The committee has to assess the performance in the light of the records available. In the light of the annual confidential report for the past three years and the review report for the five years, which is quoted above, we are of opinion that the review committee was right in concurring with the selection committee. The Tribunal rightly non-suited the petitioner. We find no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned. There is neither any illegality nor impropriety to be rectified in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with the expectation that the petitioner would improve in future and would get his due. No costs. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, knc/- (JUDGE)