AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicants are working as Principal Technical Officers (PTO) in the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), the 2nd
respondent herein. They became due for promotion to the post of Joint Director (JD).However, the Interview Board did not recommend their names,
and they were not promoted. A representation was made by one of the applicants on 30.08.2019, complaining about the denial of promotion. A reply
was given on 05.12.2019 stating that the selections are made by the Interview Board and since the Board did not recommend the names of the
applicants, they were not promoted.
Earlier, the applicants filed OA No. 3445/2019 feeling aggrieved by the denial of promotion. The OA was disposed of on 28.11.2019 by directing
the respondents to pass a speaking order. On 20.03.2020, the respondents passed an order reiterating their stand taken in the communication dated
05.12.2019. This OA is filed challenging the orders dated 05.12.2019 and 20.03.2020.
The applicants contend that they became eligible on the basis of seniority and they possess the requisite qualification and fulfilled the conditions for
promotion to the post of JD, but they were denied of the same. They contend that the reason furnished by the respondents cannot be sustained in law.
We heard Mr. Ajesh Luthra, learned counsel for applicants and Mr. R.S. Rana, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission
through video conferencing.
The promotion from the post of PTO to JD is on the basis of selection, by an Interview Board. The applicants were considered for promotion on as
many as three occasions, but they were not selected by the Interview Board. The Selection Committee has its own parameters and discretion to
devise its own method and procedure for assessing the merit of the officers in the feeder category, for promotion to the next higher post. It is only if
the members of the selection committee acted in malafide or arbitrary that an occasion would arise for examining the circumstances under which an
officer was not selected. In the absence of such a plea and proof thereof, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the assessment made by the Interview
Board. The respondents have categorically stated that the cases of the applicants were considered, but the Interview Board did not select them. There
is nothing that can be done, by the Tribunal in such cases.
The OA is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.