AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PER HON’BLE MRS. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:
“To declare the action of the respondents in denying promotion to the applicant as SO/H grade w.e.f 01-07-2019 at par with other colleagues as illegal, arbitrary and clear violation of the applicant fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution; and Consequently, direct the respondents herein to consider the applicant for promotion as SO/H grade w.e.f 01-07-2019 at par with other colleagues with all the consequential benefits such as arrears of salary etc, and pass any other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
The brief facts of the case, according to the applicant, are that he initially joined in the 2nd respondent’s organisation in the year 1988 in the post of Scientific Assistant -B in the Scientific Officer Industrial Establishment. Later, he was promoted as E2-E7 Scientific Officer/G (SO/G). At present, he is working as Scientific Officer/G (SO/G) in the Department of Atomic Energy and posted as Dy. Maintenance Manager(E-P) at Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru)-HWP(M), in Telanagana State. He got two extra-ordinary promotions (5 years) of SO/F in 2009 and SO/G in 2014 respectively, with good track record of works. He had completed 36 years of unblemished service in the department with Out Standing APAR's.
The applicant has contended that the due date of his next promotion i.e., Scientific Officer/H ( SO/H) was supposed to be 01-07-2019 and the eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion to Scientific Officer/H (SO/H) is that one should complete 05 years’ of residency period as SO/G and 05 Outstanding APAR's, as per the prescribed norms. As on the due date for promotion as Scientific Officer/H, he had completed 05 years’ of residency period as Scientific Officer /G, and having five Outstanding APAR's, and fully eligible and entitled for promotion as Scientific Officer/H. The respondents herein have considered the candidates of SO/G to SO/H, and issued order's of promotion, vide Notification, HWB/R/4(12)/2022/4629, dated December 21, 2022 and promoted the following officer's, who got SO/G in the same year of 2014 along with him:
Shri. Devendra Kumar Singh. HWP, Mumbai.
Shri. G.Srinivasa Rao, HWP, Manuguru.
In the above orders of promotion as Scientific Officer/H, his name is not included and no reasons were communicated for not considering his name. Even though he was fully entitled to be considered for the promotion as Scientific Officer /H, the respondents herein have denied the same without any valid reasons. He is fulfilling all the norms required for the next promotion of Scientific Officer/H, and never faced any disciplinary proceedings nor any penalty was imposed. Further, no adverse remarks ever been communicated to him.
The applicant has further contended that he never received any memo or warning during his entire span of service and all the gradings were ‘Outstanding’ in the relevant period, as obtained under the RTI Act. Denial of promotion to him to the post of Scientific Officer/H (SO/H), by the respondents is clearly illegal, arbitrary and clear violation of the applicants fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The applicant has further contended that as per the Merit Promotion Scheme, OM No. 23/1(170/2014-CCS/7216, dated 9-6-2014, the minimum residency period for promotion to SO/H, is 5 years as SO/G, as per S. Nos. 5 & 6 of Table IA of above referred OM. He is fully eligible for promotion as SO/H in 2019, along with others, but, the same was denied in an arbitrary manner, whereas Mr G. S. Rao, Mr D. K. Singh and Mr. GSSVJ Sarma, have got promotion to SO/H, who were all promoted as SO/G in 2014 along with him. He was having 5 A-l grades consecutively from 2017 to 2021, as per APAR gradings list provided by CAO, HWB on 15-03-2023 under RTI Act, which also confirms his eligibility for promotion to SO/H grade, but the same was denied for exposing the fraud. He was victimised by the authorities with certain vested interest due to unearthing of financial fraud worth Rs.10 crore in which some top officials were involved. An enquiry committee established the fraud and ordered the recovery of excess payment from the contractor.
The applicant has further contended that he was earlier considered for the following posts and effected the promotions on due dates as follows:
| Grade/Promotion given | Year of promotion | Residency(years) | Remarks | Enclosed order copy |
| SA/B | 15-4-1988 | Initial appointment | - | El |
| SO/SB | 1-8-1991 | Elevated to Scientific Officer(SO) | After acquiring higher qualification | E2 |
| SO/SC | 1-8-1994 | 3 | Normal | E3 |
| SO/D | 1-8-1998 | 5 | Normal | E4 |
| SO/E | 1-8-2004 | 6 | Normal+1 | E5 |
| SO/F | 1-7-2009 | 5 | Earlier(Out-standing) | E6 |
| SO/G | 1-7-2014 | 5 | Earlier(Out-standing) | E7 |
| SO/H | Due 01-07-2019 | 5 | if 5 APAR grades are Outstanding | Fit for this, but not given- |
| SOH | Due 01-07-2020 | - | -do- | Fit for this, but not given- |
The applicant has further contended that he had contacted the respondents herein and requested for promotion, but, there was no response and no reasons were communicated for denial of promotion as SO/H w.e.f 01-07-2019. The action of the respondents in denying promotion to him to the post of SO/H wef 01-07-2019, at the appropriate time, had caused harassment and mental agony to him. The said action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and he prayed this Tribunal to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion as SO/H grade wef 01-07-2019 at par with other colleagues with all the consequential benefits.
In support of his contentions, the applicant had quoted the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. K.V.L. Narasimha Rao (AIR 1999 SC 2255), wherein it has been observed as under:
“In normal circumstances when the retrospective promotions are effected all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an officer who has been denied promotion earlier.”
The applicant has further quoted the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi, in the case of Azad Singh vs Govt., Of NCT of Delhi dated 16th October, 2012, passed in O.A.No.3175/2011, wherein it has been held as follows:
“8.The aforesaid order of this Tribunal was challenged by the Union of India before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (C) No.5495/2005 (supra) and vide its order dated 20.10.2010 the High Court upheld the aforesaid order of this
Tribunal and held as under:-7. We are noticing a most unfortunate trend of bureaucrats ducking issues and not taking complete decisions resulting in multiple litigations. Instant case highlights how bureaucrats breed litigation. An issue which need not have been litigated even once had to be litigated four times over.
8.We sustain the direction issued by the Tribunal keeping in view the specific facts of the instant case.
9.But, we have to safeguard the interest of the tax paying public. One of the reason to deny back wages to a person who has not shouldered the responsibilities of a higher post is public interest. Thus, the requirement to safeguard the said public interest compel us to issue a direction to the petitioner that whatever extra sum would now be paid to Chittal by way of back wages, which was his legitimate due, should be recovered from the officers concerned who acted with supine indifference and gross negligence. If more than one officer is found to have so acted, the blame would be apportioned and recoveries effected from the officers concerned. Surely, it is time to send a signal to the bureaucrats that only when they are found to be acted bonafide (but wrong) would beneficial provisions of law be permitted to be used as shields by them and if they are found to be acting with supine indifference or grossly negligent bordering on contumacious negligence, penalty would have to be paid by them. This we feel would make the bureaucrat more accountable as we find that today many of them simply laze around and twitch their thumbs throughout the day.
10.The writ petition is dismissed with costs assessed in sum of Rs.5000/-against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent.”
The applicant has, therefore, filed the present OA, seeking the above relief.
The respondents have contested the OA by filing a detailed reply statement. They have submitted that the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) is a broad based multi-disciplinary organization engaged in development and deployment of Nuclear Technology in India, which is functioning under the direct control of the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India, Heavy Water Board (Central Office), Mumbai (HWB, Mumbai), which is a constituent Unit under DAE. HWB, Mumbai, is an Industrial Unit, which produces Heavy Water, and is also involved in production of nuclear grade speciality materials. Under HWB, there are 7 Heavy Water Plants, and all these Plants are operating, maintaining, controlling and functioning under the control of HWB. The Plants are located at Thal (Maharashtra), Manuguru (Telangana), Tuticorin (Tamilnadu), Talcher (Odisha), Kota (Rajasthan), Baroda & Hazira (Gujarat).
The respondents have further submitted that the Heavy Water Plant, Manuguru (HWPM), is a production unit under HWB, Mumbai. Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru) produces Heavy Water based on Br thermal Hydrogen Sulphide-Water Exchange Process, which is used as moderator and coolant in the Indian Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) of Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking under DAE, and thus, is engaged in the sovereign function of Government of India. Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961, allocates the business of Government among its different Ministries/Departments. According to Schedule 2 under item No. 5 of these Rules, all matters relating to personnel under the control of DAE, have been allocated to the charge of the Respondents’-Department. The DAE is thus responsible for personnel polices pertaining to all those working under DAE. For effectively carrying out these activities, DAE has given due attention to development of human resources. Accordingly, the recruitment and promotion system have been formulated for its personnel in Scientific and Technical categories. In exercise of the special powers vested in the DAE by the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules 1961, the Respondents' Department, being a Scientific Department, has, from its inception, followed unique policy in promotion of officers in the Scientific and Technical grades based on the need to develop a cadre of competent Scientific and Technologists. The promotion of all scientific and technical personnel of DAE, is based on merit. The promotion scheme is, therefore, known as 'Merit Promotion Scheme' (MPS). Promotions were made from one grade to other not on the basis of vacancies, but, on the basis of performance and conduct of the individual. Under the MPS, a three step process is adopted for this purpose of grant of promotion in respect of Scientific and Technical personnel up to the grade of Scientific Officer/Technical Officer 'G' (Pay level up to 13 A). The performance of the individual is assessed, reviewed recorded in the Confidential Report (CR) and Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR). For this purpose, assessment by all supervisors under whom the individual has been assigned to work during the year is obtained. A duly constituted Screening Committee, which also includes competent members outside the hierarchy and who can bring peer professional assessment of the individual, considers all cases that are eligible for promotion as on the rationalized date based on Minimum Eligibility Period (MEP) i.e., minimum residency period in a particular post/grade and make recommendation for consideration of the candidates for being interviewed by the Selection Committee or otherwise. Such an assessment is based on various factors such as grading in CR/APARS, assessment of skills and recommendation of the Divisions/Group in which the official is working, impact of scientific and technical accomplishments on DAE programme, assessment by the peers, special attributes towards guiding scientific and technological activities, leadership qualities, productivity, interpersonal relationship etc. that are relevant to the individual case. A duly constituted Standing Selection Committee interviews those candidates, who are recommended by the Screening Committee, for interview and recommended for promotion to the next higher grade. Whereas, in the case of promotion from Scientific / Technical Officer 'G' (Pay level 13 A) to the grade of Scientific / Technical Officer 'H' (Pay level 14), after the recommendation of the duly constituted Screening committee at Unit level, taking into consideration various criteria indicated above, such eligible cases would be placed before the duly constituted Senior Standing Selection Committee constituted in DAE, consisting of Head of Unit, to evaluate the officers eligible to be considered for promotion to higher grades of Scientific/Technical Officer 'H' under the Merit Promotion Scheme, duly taking into account the impact of scientific and technological accomplishments on DAE programme, special attributes towards guiding scientific and technological activities, leadership qualities, productivity, interpersonal relationship, potential to shoulder higher responsibilities, ability to work in teams to harmonise benefits etc.,. The duly recommended officers by the Senior Selection Standing Committee in DAE, shall be placed before the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for their recommendation and approval. There is no interview for grant of promotion to the grade of Scientific/ Technical Officer 'H' and above. Further, meeting the APAR gradings alone may not be sufficient for considering the officers for promotion to the next higher grade.
The respondents have further submitted that the applicant joined the Department as Category-l trainee on 15/04/1987. After completion of his one (01) year training, he was absorbed as SA/B on 15/04/1988. Subsequently he acquired additional qualification and got promoted in the regular course to the post of SO/G w.e.f. 01/07/2014. The recommendations of Heavy Water Board, with respect to promotion of the Applicant from the grade of SO/G to SO/H, as per the norms as revised w.e.f 01/07/2019, 01/07/2020, 01/07/2021, 01/07/2022 & 01/07/2023, (including APAR gradings and minimum eligibility period) are tabulated below.
| SI. No | Date of consideration as per revised norms | Required MEP in the grade of SO/G | Required APAR gradings for latest 5 APARS | APAR gradings of Applicant during MEP | Final status of promotion to the grade of SO/H |
| 1 | 01/07/2019 (Exhibit-R2) | 5 years | (2013-14 to 2017-18) 5 A1 | 2 A1 & 3 A2 | Not meeting norms hence not Recommended |
| 2 | 01/07/2020 (Exhibit-R3) | 6 years | (2014-15 to 2018-19) 4 A1 & 1 A2 | 2 A1 & 3 A2 | Not meeting norms hence not Recommended |
| 3 | 01/07/2021 (Exhibit-R4) | 7 years | (2015-16 to 2019-20) 3 A1 & 2 A2 | 3 A1 & 2 A2 | The Screening Committee has recommended his case since he met the APAR norms whereas the Senior Standing Selection Committee and Appointment Committee of Cabinet did not find him fit for promotion to the grade of SO/H. |
| 4 | 01/07/2022 (Exhibit-R5) | 8 years | (2016-17 to 2020-21) 2 A1 & 3 A2 | 4 A1 & 1 A2 | |
| 5 | 01/07/2023 (Exhibit-R6) | 9 years | (2017-18 to 2021-22) 2 A1 & 3 A2 | 4 A1 & 1 A2 |
From the above table, according to the respondents, it is evident that whenever the Applicant was meeting norms, his case was recommended for promotion. But mere meeting of Minimum Eligibility Period (MEP) and APAR grading are not a sufficient criteria to gain promotion. The committee needs to find the candidate fit to hold the post of SO/H, in which the decision of the committee is final.
The respondents have contended that that there is no impugned order against which the applicant has filed this OA, which shows that the Applicant has not exhausted all the departmental remedies before knocking the doors of this Tribunal. Hence, on this ground alone, the OA may be dismissed in limine.
The respondents have further contended that the Applicant did not meet the promotion norms with respect to APAR grading during the previous 4 years. The Screening Committee constituted at Unit level did not consider the Applicant for promotion to the grade of SO/H w.e.f. 01.07.2019 and 01.07.2020, The eligibility for consideration to the next promotion to Scientific Officer H, which is considered as a senior group leadership level post requiring good technical and administrative skills, is quite stringent.
The respondents have denied the contention of the Applicant that meeting residency period, APAR grading never faced disciplinary proceedings will be sufficient for earning a promotion in the next higher grade for SO/H. The Senior Standing Selection Committee constituted in DAE and Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) assessing the overall performance of a candidate with regard to excellence and achievements in the candidates field of activities, domain knowledge, scientific and technical competence, analytical abilities, originality in approach to problem solving, communication abilities, potential to shoulder higher responsibilities, ability to work in teams to harmonise benefits, shall also evaluate the candidates in respect of excellence in additional criteria and attributes such as, consistency of high performance, broad vision, new initiatives in research, development in sectors of work related to the Department's overall functioning, proven leadership qualities etc.,. Apart from satisfying the above, exceptional contributions made by an officer, innovations in his areas of work, holding of responsible positions in a successful manner for reasonable periods of tenure, publications in journals with high impact factor, timely deliveries against planned targets, exceptional level of productivity etc. as applicable for areas of activities of individual officers, would also be considered as factors on which officers activities be assessed in the process of consideration for promotion to higher grade of Scientific/Technical Officer 'H'.
The respondents have further contended that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather only consideration for promotion to a particular post can be asserted as a right. Hence, denial of promotion to the Applicant to the post of SO/H is not at all illegal, arbitrary or violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as claimed by the Applicant.
The respondents have further contended that the Applicant did not have 5 A1 APAR gradings during the residency period, as indicated in the table (supra). Further, mere meeting Minimum Eligibility Period(MEP) and APAR grading, are not a sufficient criteria to gain promotion. The committee needs to find the candidate fit to hold the post of Scientific Officer/ H, in which the decision of the committee is final. Accordingly, the Applicant's claim for promotion, merely based on his meeting of eligibility criteria, is not acceptable and untenable.
The respondents have further contended that the allegations of the applicant pertaining to certain alleged financial fraud is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Department of Atomic Energy is a scientific organisation, which is fully committed to the guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission, and does its activities with complete transparency and accountability. Hence, the allegations of the applicant linking the alleged vigilance matter with denial of his promotion are completely baseless and uncalled for.
The respondents have further contended that the applicant is levelling allegations without any documentary evidence. Initially, he had stated that there is no impugned order against which this OA has been filed. Now, he claims to have approached the Respondents in this matter, without attaching any documentary proof in this regard. Hence, these claims may be disregarded for want of evidence.
The respondents have further contended that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, would become applicable only when the Applicant is considered fit for promotion. As the applicant was never considered fit for promotion, the decisions, quoted by the applicant, have no relevance in this matter. Further, the Applicant has approached this Tribunal, directly without exhausting all the departmental remedies. He has clearly suppressed the above fact, which amounts to Suppresio Veri.
The respondents have, therefore, contended that the Applicant has not made out any case either on facts or on law, and thus, not entitled to the relief sought for in the OA, and they have prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the O.A. in limine with costs.
Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the pleadings on record.
The applicant herein is seeking the relief of promotion as Scientific Officer/H ( SO/H) grade w.e.f 01.07.2019, on par with other colleagues with all consequential benefits.
As per the contention of the applicant, he is due for his next promotion i.e., SO/H from 01.07.2019. The eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion to Scientific Officer/H ( SO/H) is –
one should have completed 5 years of residency period as SO/G and 5 years of ‘Outstanding’ APAR. According to the appicaht, he has completed 5 years of residency period as SO/G and obtained 5 (five) ‘Outstanding’ APAR. Therefore, hewas fully eligible and entitled for promotion as SO/H. But, the respondents have not granted him the promotion.
The contention of the applicant is that he has never received any memo or warning during his entire span of service and all the gradings in his APAR, were ‘Outstanding’ in the relevant period, and as per Merit Promotion Scheme, the minimum residency period for promotion to SO/H is 5 years as SO/G. He was having 5 A-1 gradings consequentively from 2017 to 2021. The applicant has alleged that he has been victimised by the authorities with certain vested interests due to his unearthing of financial fraud worth Rs.10 Crores, in which top officials were involved. The applicant, when contacted the respondents, there has been no communication from the respondents.
Contesting the case, the respondents have submitted reply that the Department of Atomic Energy, has formulated a Recruitment and Promotion System of its personnel in Scientific and Technical categories exercising special powers vested by the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. The Department being a Scientific Department, has from its inception, followed a unique policy for promotion of officials in Scientific and Technical grades based on the need to develop a cadre of competent Scientists and Technologists. The promotion of all Scientific and Technical personnel is based on merit. Under the Merit Promotion Scheme, a three steps process has been adopted for the grant of promotion. The performance of the individual is assessed, reviewed and recorded in the Confidential Report and APAR. This assessment is done by all Supervisors under whom the individual has been assigned to work during the year. A Screening Committee including the competent members of the peer ground also assessed the performance of all the individuals, who are eligible for promotion as on rationalized data based on Minimum Eligibility Period (MEP) i.e., minimum residency period in a particular post/grade and thus make recommendations for consideration of the candidates for further interview by the Selection Committee or otherwise. In case of promotion from Scientific/Technical Officer-G (Pay level 13 A) to the grade of Scientific / Technical Officer 'H' (Pay level 14), after the recommendation of the duly constituted Screening committee at Unit level, taking into consideration various criteria indicated above, such eligible cases are placed before the duly constituted Senior Standing Selection Committee consisting of Head of Unit. The assessment is based on the taking into account the impact of scientific and technological accomplishments on DAE programme, special attributes towards guiding scientific and technological activities, leadership qualities, productivity, interpersonal relationship, potential to shoulder higher responsibilities, ability to work in teams to harmonise benefits etc.,. In this manner, the recommended officers by the Senior Selection Standing Committee, are placed before the Appointment Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for their recommendation and approval. There is no interview for grant of promotion to the grade of Scientific/ Technical Officer 'H' and above. But, the APAR gradings alone is not sufficient for considering the officers for promotion to the next higher grade.
The respondents have further submitted that the applicant was not meeting the norms of the promotion, as elaborated supra, on 01.07.2019, and 01.07.2020. He was found eligible only on 01.07.2021, and therefore, the Screening Committee recommended his name and he was in the zone of consideration. But, the Senior Standing Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, did not find him fit for promotion to the grade of SO/H. The Senior Standing Selection Committee and the Appointment Committee of Cabinet, assesses the overall performance of a candidate with regard to excellence and achievements in the candidates field of activities, domain knowledge, scientific and technical competence and analytical abilities, originality in approach to problem solving, communication abilities, potential to shoulder higher responsibilities, ability to work in teams to harmonise benefits, excellence in additional criteria and attributes such as, consistency of high performance, broad vision, new initiatives in research, development in sectors of work related to the Department's overall functioning, proven leadership qualities etc.,.
The respondents have also contended that the allegation of the applicant pertaining to certain alleged financial fraud is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Also, the applicant is levelling allegations without any documentary evidence. The respondents have also submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal directly without exhausting all the departmental remedies.
The Department of Atomic Energy guidelines for promotion of Scientific Officers/Engineers to the grades Scientific Officer/Engineer Grade ‘H”, ‘Outstanding Scientist’ and ‘Distinguished Scientist’ w.e.f 01.07.2019, vide letter No.23/1(7)/2014-CCS/Vol.II/15928, dated 20.12.2018, w.e.f 01.07.2020, vide letter No.23/1(7)/2014-CCS/Vol.II/14942, dated 05.12.2019, w.e.f 01.07.2021, vide letter No.23/1(7)/2014-CCS/Vol.II/9845, dated 07.12.2020, w.e.f 01.07.2022, vide letter No.23/1/2022-CCS/219, dated 06.01.2022, and w.e.f 01.07.2023, vide letter No.23/2,/2023-CCS/1275, dated 27.01.2023, brings out very categorically that –
“For Promotion of Scientific/Technical Officers ‘G’ to Scientific/Technical Officers ‘H’:
Residency Period (in years) as on 01.07/2023 APAR Gradings required 5 5A1 6 4A1 & 1A2 7 3A1 & 2A2 8 2A1 & 3A2 9 or more 1A1 & 4A2 Note:
1.(i) The above promotion guidelines are applicable to officers recruited through OCES/DGFS of Training Schools, NPCIL Training schools and KSKRA scheme. These promotion guidelines are also applicable to Medical & Veterinary Doctors and to officers recruited after PhD.
(ii)For officers with qualifications of MSc/BE/B.Tech or equivalent and ME/M.Tech, but not belonging to (i) above, further period of one year is to be added in the residency period indicated in the above guidelines.
(iii)For Diploma holders and BSc degree holders, a further period of two years is to be added in the residency period indicated in the above guidelines.
2 In addition to the assessment criteria indicated above, the screening committee shall be guided by the assessment of skills and recommendations of the Division/Group/Unit in which the candidate is working, impact of scientific and technological accomplishments in the DAE programmes, assessment by peers, special attributes towards guiding scientific and technological activities, attendance, leadership qualities, productivity, inter-personal relationship, etc. The above table indicating the APAR grading is minimum norms required for guidance for screening the cases, although meeting the APAR gradings alone may not be sufficient for considering a candidate for promotion to the next higher grade.”
As it is clear in the guidelines, the promotion to SO/H is not given only on the assessment of the APAR gradings, but, also on the assessment of the skills etc.,. As elaborated supra in the guidelines, the applicant has not given any details about his special achievements etc.,. His contention is simply on the ground of APAR grading.
In this connection Leonard D. White has stated as follows:
"The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole Organisation. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The public interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the Promotion ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as in original recruitment. Employees often prefer the rule of seniority, by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion. Within limits, seniority is entitled to consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof; and experience is 123 certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees move up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less and less weight. When seniority is made the sole determining factor, at any level. it is a dangerous guide. It does not follow that the employee longest in service in a particular trade is best suited for promotion to a higher grade; the very opposite may be true”. (Introduction to the Study of Public Administration, 4th Edn., pp. 380, 383)
In Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47), it was held
that “It is trite law that participation in a recruitment process or mere placement on the merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment”.
Further, as per OM No.23/2/2015-CCS/2895,dated 04.03.2015, on the subject “Instructions for screening of the promotion cases of Scientific Officers/Engineers to the Grades H, H+ (H with Special Pay), and the Grade of Outstanding Scientist, it is seen that the minimum residency period of 3 years has to be exercised only in Exceptional cases and the following criteria should be applied to qualify the exceptional nature of performance:
(i)The Officer is a consistently outstanding performer, and is also fulfilling one or more of the following:
(ii)The Officer has received National or International recognition of high level for example, in the form of Dr. S.S Bhatnagar Award. Fellowship of Indian Academy of Sciences or Indian National Science Academy or Indian National Academy of Engineering or similar International Award (eg. of ICTP, TWAS);
(iii)The Officer is recipient of DAE Homi Bhabha Science & Technology Award or is a DAE-SRC Awardee;
(iv)The Officer has shown unique outstanding performance leading to successful development of a technology or a product, or created an operational record.
(v)The Officer has proven leadership qualities resulting in notable accomplishment in the DAE programmes.
For the cases falling under categories (iv) and (v) above, a special recommendation specifically highlighting the outstanding performance/accomplishments should be brought out by the Head of the Unit concerned, for review by Secretary, DAE.
5.The Screening Committee, while performing its functions following the procedures described in Section 4 of the CG-MPS, should also review the exceptional cases coming under (4) above and record its specific recommendations in the screening report either endorsing or disagreeing with the recommendations of the Heads of Units.”
As observed by this Tribunal, the applicant was in the zone of consideration for promotion w.e.f 01.07.2021, with a required MEP in the grade of SO/G (7) years, and required APAR grading for latest (5) APARs 2015-2016 to 2019-2020, 3A1 and 2A2. The applicant’s name was recommended by the Screening Committee, but, he was not found fit for promotion by the Senior Standing Selection Committee and Appointment Committee of the Cabinet. Mere meeting of minimum eligible period and APAR grading are not sufficient criteria for promotion, as clarified by the letter of the DAE dated 27.01.2023.
With the above deliberations, this Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is not eligible for promotion, and the OA, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.