UNION OF INDIA Vs. MANJURANI ROUTRAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dtd. 26/9/2008 passed by the High Court of Orrisa at Cuttack (for short "the High Court") in Writ Petition (C) No. 7080 of 2005. By the said judgment, the High Court, while allowing the writ petition issued certain directions in supersession of the directions issued in O.A. No. 148 of 2001 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Cuttack (for short "the CAT") by its order dtd. 4/5/2005. The order of the Tribunal had been assailed before the High Court by the respondent no. 1 herein.

(2.) The facts in brief are that, at the time of filing O.A. No. 148 of 2001 on 22/4/2001 before the CAT, the respondent no. 1 was working as Principal System Analyst (Scientist D) in the National Informatics Centre, Cuttack. As recommended by the 5th Pay Commission, a promotion policy known as Flexible Complementing Scheme (for short "FCS") was introduced vide office memorandum dtd. 9/11/1998 by Department of Personnel and Training. During the pendency of the original application filed by the respondent no.1 before the CAT, Ministry of Information Technology vide office memorandum dtd. 6/8/2001 communicated the rules made in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These rules regulated the in-situ promotion of Scientific and Technical Group A posts and were called The Scientific and Technical Group "A" (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules 1998 (for short "Rules"). Rule 4 of the Rules prescribed a revised assessment procedure in sub-clause (a), (b) and (c) and provided that assessment for promotion shall consist of two stages: (i) "screening" by a screening committee on the basis of performance reflected in the officer's confidential reports; and (ii) "interview" by a selection committee. As per the Rules, the respondent no. 1 was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of 'Scientist E' on completion of four years of service as 'Scientist D'. In December, 1999, she was called for interview, but her name was not recommended. On 30/12/2000, she was again called for interview but again she could not find place in the promotion list, while her juniors were recommended and granted promotion vide order dtd. 14/2/2001. As the respondent no. 1 was not granted promotion, she submitted representations on 25/2/2001 and 12/3/2001 to the appellant No. 2/Director General and on 13/3/2001 to the Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, making a request to reconsider her case. The said representations were rejected vide memorandum dtd. 16/4/2001 communicated by Joint Director, National Informatics Centre.

(3.) The respondent no. 1, by filing OA No. 148 of 2001 on 22/4/2001, assailed the order rejecting the representation and the promotion order of the incumbent juniors (respondent no. 5 and 6 therein) dtd. 14/2/2001 before the CAT. Vide order dtd. 4/5/2005, CAT disposed of the said original application and observed as under:-