IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 14437 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.190/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS --------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, KRISHI BHAVAN,DR.RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SREEKARIYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH SMT.ELIZEBETH MEERA RESPONDENT -------------------- SHRI.A.S.SABU, T6,JR.FARM SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL TUBER CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SREEKARIYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. BY ADV. SRI.N.R.CHANDRASEKHARAN FOR R1 SRI.T.H.CHACKO FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.14437/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DT.8.1.2008IN O.A.NO.190/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.190/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.190/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P4: COPY OF REJOINDER IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.190/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P5: COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT TO REJOINDER IN O.A. NO.190/2007 OF CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P6: COPY OF CTCRI MEMO NO.126/84-PER DT.4.3.1997. EXT.P7: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.23.6.2004 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION DT.19.1.2002. EXT.P9: COPY OF COUNCIL'S LETTER NO.1(17)/2002-ESTT.V DT.20.5.2004. EXT.P10: COPY OF OFFICE NOTE NO.14/2003- PER DT.10.8.2004. EXT.P1l: COPY OF ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION DT.27.2.2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF LETTER NO.14/2003 – PER DT.8.3.2006 ISSUED BY CTCRI TO THE ICAR. EXT.P13: COPY OF LETTER NO.14/2003 – PER DT.16.1.2007 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF GRADING DT.8.3.2006 OF SHRI.A.S.SABU FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1995-2006. EXT.P15: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.25.1.2007 BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITONER. EXT.P16: COPY OF COUNCIL'S LETTER NO.11(17)/2002-ESTT.IV DT.14.12.2006. EXT.P17: COPY OF LETTER NO.F2(1)/2006-PER IV DT.16.5.2006 ISSUED BY ICAR. //TRUE COPY// K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 14437 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 24th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents 2 and 4 in O.A. No.190/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the petitioners herein. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant filed Ext.P2 O.A., praying, inter alia, for promotion to T-7 Grade with effect from 23.3.2002. Though, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommended the case of the applicant, the same was not accepted by the competent authority. The writ petitioners resisted the above application, by filing Ext.P3 reply statement. The Tribunal after hearing both sides, found that the appointing authority wrongly declined to follow the recommendation of the DPC. It was held that the recommendation for promotion was made in the case of the applicant not exclusively based on Annual Confidential Reports. They were only one of the inputs, based on which the assessment was made. Promotions in other Central Government Departments were being ordered WPC 14437/08 2 solely based on the gradings in the Annual Confidential Reports. The 1st petitioner applied the said yardstick in this case and declined to follow the recommendation of the DPC. The Tribunal held that the said course of action adopted by the ICAR was impermissible in law. There is substantial difference between the assessment made in ICAR and the assessment made in other Central Government Departments. Based on that finding, Annexures-A11 and A13, which were orders impugned before the CAT, were quashed and ordered the 1st petitioner to promote the respondent/applicant as recommended by the DPC, by Ext.P1 order. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the CAT, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. Though several contentions were raised by the writ petitioners, they mainly pointed out that the order of the CAT to straightaway promote the applicant was illegal. The matter should have been left to the appointing authority to pass fresh orders, in the light of the observations of the CAT contained in its order. On this point, we heard the learned counsel for the respondent, who was applicant before the Tribunal. We feel that it is not proper for the Tribunal to straightaway order promotion. It has to be ordered by the appointing authority. We agree with the reasons and conclusions of the CAT, based on which it quashed the impugned orders Annexures-A11 and A13. In the result, we modify the direction of the WPC 14437/08 3 CAT, by directing the 1st petitioner appointing authority to pass fresh orders in the case of promotion of the respondent to T – 7 Grade in accordance with law, in the light of the observations of the CAT made in Ext.P1 order. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/