Union Of India & Ors vs B.Annathurai & Anr

3. By the aforesaid order the Tribunal quashed the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 13.10.2003 in respect of both the respondents herein and directed the appellants herein to evolve a proper format for recording minutes of DPC and to review the case of the two respondents, namely, Shri B. Annathurai and Shri E. Chandiran Gandhiji respectively for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer `SB' and Scientist/Engineer `SD' with effect from 01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000 respectively. Review applications filed by the appellants were also dismissed by the Tribunal through a common order dated 26.10.2005 as being in the nature of an appeal. The writ petitions filed by the Union of India and others against the aforesaid findings were dismissed by the High Court.

4. A time bound merit based and non-vacancy oriented scheme of promotion called Flexible Complementary Scheme (for short FCS) has been in existence in Indian Space Research Organisation (for short `ISRO')/ Department of Space (for short `DOS') for promotion of its Scientific and Technical personnel in all the four groups (A, B, C & D) right from the year Page 2 of 17 1976. Emphasis was on merit and not on seniority unlike in other Ministries/Departments of Government of India. The Department of Space was vested with powers to formulate its own policies including norms for recruitment and promotion of its personnel and to this extent, the DPT orders were not applicable to ISRO/Department of Space. In 1972, ISRO was brought under DOS by the Govt. of India

5. The Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre (for short `LPSC'), the appellant Organization is one of the five major Centres of ISRO under DOS, Government of India. The Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government of India issued OM No. 2/41/97-PIC, dated 9.11.1998 as a continuation of O.M. No. A.42014/2/86-Admn 1(A), dated 28.5.1986 introducing Flexible Complementing Scheme of promotion in other Scientific and Technological Departments which was not applicable to ISRO/DOS. Relevant portion of the said OM is extracted hereunder:

6. The respondent no. 1 herein namely B. Annathurai was working as Technical Assistant `C' in the grade of Rs. 5500-175-9000 whereas respondent No. 2, namely Shri E. Chandiran Gandhiji was working as Scientist/Engineer `SC'. Both were working in the appellants Organization i.e. Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre.

8. Respondent no. 2 was interviewed along with 19 other candidates. Cases of six candidates including the respondent no. 2 were deferred by the DPC. Respondent no. 2 was called for interview again after one year on 19.12.2000 but he did not appear. Respondent no. 1 was again called for interview on 30.2.2000 but again he did not appear.

9. Both the respondents filed separate O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, (for short `Tribunal') praying for setting aside the DPC proceedings held on 20.4.1999 and 23.12.1999 respectively. They stated that the appellants are unhappy with them for repeatedly approaching the Tribunal with regard to promotion. By a common order dated 4.7.2001 the learned Tribunal directed to reconstitute the DPC by including a member of SC/ST community as prayed for by respondents. In compliance with the said direction the appellant organization reconstituted the DPC and called both the respondents for interview but they did not attend. They were given further opportunities even subsequent thereafter on 1.4.1999 and 1.1.2000 respectively. Page 5 of 17 Although they appeared before the Selection Committee but they refused to answer any of the questions put to them by the DPC members. Therefore, the respondents were not recommended for promotion.

10. Respondents were given further opportunities to appear in subsequent selections held for the purpose but they did not appear. They did not appear in the interview which was conducted as per Tribunal's order dated 28.8.2003 as such they were not recommended for promotion by the duly reconstituted DPC. The respondents filed O.As. before Tribunal which were disposed off by the Tribunal by a common order dated 11.08.2005 directing the appellants to evolve a proper format for recording the minutes of the DPC taking into account the various requirements and then to hold a Review DPC retrospectively i.e. as on 01.04.1999 and 01.01.2000 respectively.

11. Being aggrieved the appellants herein filed writ petitions before the High Court of Madras. The High Court found no merit in the writ petitions and dismissed the same. It did not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of the Ld. Tribunal and directed the writ appellants to implement the directions of the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date Page 6 of 17 of receipt of a copy of the order of the High Court. Hence the appellants filed the Special Leave Petitions on which leave stand granted.

Page 16 of 17

20. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the findings and conclusions recorded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court cannot be sustained and are therefore by this Judgment we set aside and quash the same.

21. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed.