AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
This is an unfortunate case where a meritorious officer who was selected as "Professional B" by the Consultancy Development Centre, the second respondent herein, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, has been subjected to gross injustice on account of the fancies or irresponsible conduct on the part of the Reviewing Officer, the third respondent herein.
The applicant was selected as "Professional B" through a selection process on 18.05.2010. The appointment was for a period of five years on completion of training for one year. The rules governing the organization provide for the maintenance of ACRs for the employees, so chosen. The rules also provide for renewal of contract beyond 5 years depending upon the assessment in the ACRs.
The ACRs of the applicant for the first two years of the five years spell were assessed as "Outstanding" or "Very Good". However, for subsequent three years though the Reporting Officer assessed her as "Very Good", the Reviewing Authority, the third respondent herein, down graded the same to the level of "Poor" or "Average". In view of that, the second respondent issued letter dated 03.06.2016 stating that the Contract Renewal Committee has not recommended her case for renewal and in that view of the matter, the contract is not renewed.
The applicant obtained the copies of ACRs for the three years in question and submitted a representation to the competent authority. However, the same was disposed of on 01.09.2016 by making reference to the observations of the Committee for Renewal of Contract. This OA is filed challenging the communication dated 3. 06.2016 and other related proceedings.
The applicant contends that her performance was assessed as "Very Good" and "Outstanding" for the first two years and her trouble started ever since the third respondent became the Director of the Institution. She contends that though the Reporting Officer awarded marks duly indicating the reasons, the third respondent slashed them to very low level without any reason whatever. It is also pleaded that the competent authority did not examine the issue independently and was guided by the observations made by the Renewal Committee.
On behalf of the respondents a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the applicant does not have a right to insist on the contract being renewed. It is also stated that the Committee, which is constituted for the purpose of renewal of contracts took into account the ACRs for the relevant years and on finding that they are not up to the mark, did not recommend the case for renewal.
Though the third respondent who is made a party by name, is served with notice, he did not choose to enter appearance.
It is not in dispute that the appointment of the applicant is on contractual basis. Had it been a matter which is not governed by any further conditions or rules providing for the renewal of the contract, things would have been different altogether. The order of appointment itself contains various conditions which are to the effect that if the ratings of the ACRs of the employee are up to satisfactory level, the contract would be renewed. The respondents have also framed policy in this behalf. The manner in which the contract of an employee is to be extended, is provided for at the threshold itself. It reads as under:-
"Policy for Renewal for Tenure/Contract"
The Annual Appraisal process, along with the Confidential Performance Appraisal Reports (ACRs) covering work output, contribution to additional activities, responsibility and commitment, and personal qualities would shall form the basis for renewal of tenure/contract. Each employee shall be assessed by the reporting officer on the basis of these parameters, which shall be on a specified points scale and the final score shall form the basis for deciding the renewal of tenure/contract.
"Procedure for renewal of tenure/contract
a) There model of tenure/contract/agreement shall be different for different levels of employees (Technologists/Engineers/Experts/Professionals, Technical/Administrative staff and support staff)
b) A Contract Renewal Committee shall be constituted by the appointing authority, which shall consider all cases due for renewal. The Committee shall mett at least four months before the completion of tenure/contract of the due cases.
c) The renewal of tenure/contract shall be based purely on merit and on the basis of evaluation of ACRs and interviews/discussion with the concerned employees by the Committee constituted.
d) The Committee shall adopt the following criteria
Parameter
Weightage
ACR Rating (Final Grade given by the Reviewing Officer)
5- Outstanding(85 marks or above) 4- Very Good (75-84 Marks) 3-Good (65-74 Marks) 2-Average (50-64 Marks) Based on the weightages for different categories, the marks will be proportionally added.
Attendance
5 Marks for 250 days and above 4 Marks for 240 - 249 days 3 Marks for 230 - 239 days 2 Marks for 220 - 229 days Absence for official duty including training and maternity/paternity leave will not be counted as leave. Based on the weightages for different categories, the marks will be proportionally added.
Discussion and Interview including assessment of additional contributions
In case of ACR Rating and Attendance, average of contract period as on 1st January or 1 st July of year of review will be considered and the 6 (six) months period before the completion of the contract will be taken for the purpose of review.
The weightages of the above parameters for different categories of employees shall be as follows
Particulars
Technologists/Engineers/ Experts/Professionals
Technical/ Administrative Staff
Support Staff
ACR Rating
70
65
65
Attendanc e
10
20
25
Discussion and Interview
20
15
10
Based on the above weightages and the score, the Committee shall follow the norms as indicated in Appendix-I
e) The recommendations of tenure/contract shall be made by the committee based on the overall performance of the employee and considering the work load and the requirements of CDC.
f) The recommendations of the contract renewal committee shall be approved by the Appointing Authority after which an offer for tenure/contract, based on the decision shall be made to the employee."
Thus, it emerges that the rating of ACRs of an employee, though appointed on contract basis, assumes significance in the context of renewal. The respondents have made available to us the ACRs of the applicant. The system adopted by the respondents provided for evaluation by the Reporting Officer and then review, by another authority. There is no provision for the accepting authority.
For 2010-2011, the Reporting Officer awarded 80 marks to the applicant and rated her as very good, and the Reviewing Authority concurred with the same. For the next year, the Reporting Officer awarded 86 marks and rated her as Outstanding. The Reviewing Officer enhanced the marks to 90 and maintained the rating Outstanding. The trouble of the applicant started from the year 2012-2013 onwards. For all these three years, the third respondent herein was the Reviewing Officer. For the three years the ratings given by the Reporting Officer on the one hand, and the Reviewing Officer on the other hand, are as under:-
Year 2012-2013
Marks/Grading awarded
Reporting Officer
86/ Very Good
Reviewing Officer
50/Average
Year 2013-2014
Reporting Officer
87/ Very Good
Reviewing Officer
40/Poor
Year 2014-2015
Reporting Officer
88/ Very Good
Reviewing Officer
30/Poor
It is essential to take note of the rating of the ACRs of the applicant for the year 2015-2016, the Reporting Officer awarded 88 marks and rated her as Very Good and the Reviewing Officer awarded her 78 and rated her as Good.
The inconsistency and the difference is glaring. It is only the third respondent who was determined to rate the applicant as low as possible, notwithstanding the fact that the immediate superior of the applicant who had the occasion to observe her work, always rated her Very Good or above.
The very purpose of having a hierarchy of officers in the context of maintenance of ACRs is to ensure that the personal likes and dislikes do not matter. The typical procedure prescribed for maintenance of ACRs mandates that whenever the concerned officer awards marks or rating which is fairly high or fairly low, it must be accompanied by reasons. This is particularly so when the Reviewing Officer intends to down grade the rating.
We have perused the ACRs that were maintained during the tenure of the third respondent. Except he stated that he disagreed with the assessment made by the Reporting Officer, he did not make any reference to any instance either of misconduct or inefficiency.
The competent authority, virtually acts as the ultimate appellate authority wherever an employee feels aggrieved by the inconsistent ratings. As the law stands now, the respondents are under obligation to communicate the ACRs of the three years referred to above. They did not do so and the applicant obtained them by submitting application under the Right to Information Act. When a representation was made the competent authority passed an order on 01.09.2016 as under:-
"Sub: Grievance/Representation on against the facts reg. of Ms. Meetali Bhal
Dear Mrs. Bahl
I have been instructed to inform you the decision of Chairman, CDC in connection with Grievance/Representations filed by you on above mentioned subject.
The decision of the Chairman, CDC is reproduced below:
"I have carefully gone through and considered all the documents on record as well as the representation of Ms. Meetali Bahl, and found that the case for renewal of contract was considered by a duly constituted committee in accordance with the rules on the subject. The committee has not recommended of renewal of her contract because she could not achieve the threshold marks as prescribed under the rules. Moreover there does not seem to be any procedural infirmity involved. Therefore, her request may not be acceded to".
This would not at all satisfy the requirement of law. The grading in ACRs have relevance in respect of service of a regular employee. In the instant case also the ACRs assumes significance in the context of renewal of the contract.
We, therefore, allow the OA and set aside both the impugned orders. The competent authority i.e., the first respondent, the Chairman, CDC, is directed to pass fresh orders on the representation made by the applicant as regards the three years, i.e, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, following the procedure prescribed in this behalf, such as, by inviting the remarks or comments of the concerned officers, and by objectively assessing the work, if the remarks cannot be obtained. In certain cases, the gradation given by an officer can be ignored, if he is not available. Depending upon the order that may be passed by the competent authority, further steps in the context of renewal of contract of the applicant, shall be taken.
Before parting with the case, we observe that but for the fact the third respondent is said to be no more in the organization, we would have not only passed strictures against him, but also would have considered the feasibility of rendering him unfit to hold the posts of that nature.
There shall be no order as to costs.