The Union of India and Others vs K.M. Sreedhara

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—The order dated 10.6.2009 passed in O.A. No. 220/2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal is called in question in this writ petition by the Union of India. The records reveal that the respondent was appointed as Tin Copper Smith under 4th petitioner herein. There was restructuring of artisans based on recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission. Thus there are three grades of Industrial and Non-Industrial staff i.e., skilled, highly skilled and Master Craftsman (for short ''the MCM''). According to the respondent, the ratio is not strictly adhered to inasmuch as the percentage of strength to be filled under the grade Master Craftsman was not being filled up timely. The case of the respondent is that errors have been committed by the Unit Selection Panel; according to the respondent though he was eligible to be graded as Master Craftsman he is not provided with the said grade; on the other hand, though one Mr. Paramashivam is not entitled to be graded as Master Craftsman inasmuch as he has not put in three years of mandatory service in Higher skilled grade, he was selected and given as MCM. The sum and substance of the case of the respondent is that though number of juniors are graded as Master Craftsman and though one post is available to be filled up in MCM, the same is kept vacant despite the eligibility of the respondent herein. Thus the respondent approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 220/2006 praying for his placement in the grade MCM; the said application came to be allowed by the impugned order.

It is an admitted fact that the placement in MCM grade is not a promotion. The artisan staff are graded at three stages as mentioned supra i.e., skilled, highly skilled and MCM, insofar they relate to industrial and non-industrial staff are concerned. Only if the skilled workers are evaluated as more skilled, they are placed at highly skilled grade. Only if a highly skilled employee is assessed as expert in the field, he is placed in the grade of MCM. Thus placement of a particular person in a particular grade depends upon assessment of his class competency and expertise by the Unit Selection personnel. Merely because a person is old aged or that he is senior in the job, he cannot be placed in the grade of highly skilled or MCM. The employees will be placed as skilled, highly skilled and MCM grade based on assessment report and not based on seniority.

The assessment report pertaining to the respondent reveals that he is graded average, whereas others, who are in the placement of MCM grade are all graded as good. Since the respondent''s performance was found to be average, he was not placed under MCM grade. The Tribunal as an Appellate Authority should not have sat over the decision of the expert in the field. Only the Unit Selection Panel which is the expert in the filed could assess the performance of every employee and based on performance, gradation would be awarded to the employees. Since the records reveal that the petitioner was graded as average, he is not placed in MCM grade rightly. Hence it was not open to the Tribunal to substitute its own opinion in the place of the opinion of the experts in the field.

Thus the order of the Tribunal insofar it relates to granting specific direction to the petitioners to place the respondent in the grade of MCM w.e.f. 1.4.2004 is liable to be quashed and the same stands quashed. The petitioner is however, directed to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for his placement in MCM grade on merits as early as possible. The order of the Tribunal is modified. Accordingly the petition stands disposed.