D. NARASIMHA RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, DIRECTOR GENERAL COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, CHAIRMAN RECRUITMENT AND ASSESSMENT BOARD (R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 470/08 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order the Tribunal has refused to interfere with the possession of the respondent department in the matter of grant of permission to the petitioner. The petitioner retired on 31 -8 -05 on attaining the age of superannuation. At that point of time he was working as Scientist Grande IV(5) in the respondent organisation and he was working as Deputy Director and Head of the Department of Meat Fish Poultry Technology. He became eligible for the next promotion in the grade of Scientist IV(6) on completion of 5 years in Grade IV(5) on 1 -2 -2004. The promotion to the higher grades are on the basis of Flexible Complementing System (FCS) i.e. on promotion the post stands upgraded as personal to the Officer and on vacation of the post by him, the post would revert back to the grade to which it belonged initially. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was wrongly found unfit by the respondent organization for promotion to Grade IV(6). Thus he approached the CAT in O.A. 470/08 praying for promotion to the Grade IV(6). The said application came to be dismissed by the impugned order.

(2.) THE records reveal that the petitioner was considered for assessment promotion to Scientist IV(6) on 1 -2 -2004 but his name was not recommended. Again his case was considered during 2006 for the assessment year 2004 -05 as on the due date i.e. on 12 05. That time also his name was not recommended for promotion. In the meanwhile Rule 7.6.5 of CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 came to be amended with effect from 1 -4 -2007. To be eligible for assessment interview and to get recommended for promotion upto 31 -3 -2010 the Annual Confidential Report scores was the criterion. The eligible candidates are thereafter assessed on the basis of work report. Rule 7.2 of CSIR Scientist Recruitment and Assessment Promotion Rules 2001 was amended with effect from 20 -3 -2008. By the said amendment the assessment was to be done by a duly constituted Peer Committee which takes into account the Annual Confidential Reports and the work report for the years covered under the residency period without holding any assessment interview.

(3.) SINCE no interview has to be held by the Peer Committee subsequent to 20 -3 -2008, the eligible candidates were required to furnish work reports and on assessment of the work reports, the Assessment Committee recommends for promotion to the next higher grade. The Peer committee consists of highly qualified and eminent persons. The Peer Committee on assessing the work report of the petitioner found it unsatisfactory and consequently the case of the petitioner for promotion was not recommended. It is needless to observe that the petitioner did not achieve the standard set by the committee regarding the work reports. As such he was not recommended for promotion.