D.G., Indian Council For Agri. Res.& Ors vs D. Sundara Raju

2. Brief facts which are relevant to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

5. The procedure for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist is contained in Para 2.4 of the Career Advancement Scheme. The relevant rule is set out as under:

8. The respondent is a Senior Scientist in the service of the ICAR at the National Research Centre for Cashew at Puttur, Karnataka. Upon the respondent submitting information as per the prescribed assessment proforma, the ASRB addressed a letter to the Respondent calling upon him to present himself for assessment and interview for the Career Advancement Scheme. Accordingly, the respondent appeared for an interview before Selection Committee on 3.5.2001. However, the respondent secured only 49 marks out of 100 and was found unfit for promotion to the post of Principal Scientist.

The recommendation of the Selection Committee was approved by the competent authority, i.e., the Union Minister for Agriculture. The respondent was accordingly intimated of his non-promotion as a Principal Scientist on 14.8.2001.

10. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench quashed the order of the ICAR and the appellants were directed to consider the case of the respondent for promotion to the higher grade of a Principal Scientist with effect from 27.07.1998. The Tribunal also observed that the respondent would be entitled for notional fixation of pay but would not be entitled for arrears of back wages.

11. The appellants, aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court.

14. The High Court also relied on para 2.4(ii) of the Scheme and observed that Senior Scientists are eligible to the post of Principal Scientist if they have completed eight years of service and if he/she presents himself/herself before the Selection Committee constituted by ASRB with the documents indicated therein. The fact that the eligible officer appears before the Selection Committee with the relevant documents does not necessarily imply that the process of evaluation of his merit has to be on the basis of an interview nor does it indicate that the weightage to the interview can go to the extent of 50% of the total marks. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal.

Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are 25 employed while granting the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme ought to be applied in the instant case.

a) for providing opportunities for the career advancement, irrespective of the occurrence of vacancies, through a system of assessment should lead to each scientist competing with his or her rather than with colleagues and to the acceptance of the principle the "all the rights accrue from a duty well done".

b) Enable scientists to get the highest salary possible, within the system while remaining rooted to work in their respective discipline/field, 26 thereby eliminating both the undue importance attached in the past to research management policy and the request for such positions purely for the advancement of salary.

c) Link rights and responsibilities and instill through the five-year assessment system the conviction that dedicated and efficient discharge of responsibilities alone would be the means of securing professional advancement.

47. The respondent was not disclosed by the appellant either that the interview would be held for evaluating personal or intellectual qualities that attribute a Scientist and that it shall carry 50% of the total marks. This is uncontroverted position.

Had the appellants disclosed the method of evaluation the respondent may have challenged the same before participating in the selection process.

51. The appellants themselves have found 50% marks for interview highly excessive, therefore, now the criterion has 28 been changed from 50% to 10%. This is indicative of the fact that good sense had ultimately dawned on the appellants.

52. The appeal is totally devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs which are quantified as 50,000/-. The costs to be paid to the respondent within four weeks.

March 30, 2011 29