ASHWINI KUMAR Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 25th April 2005 rejecting the O.A.1463/2004 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner herein has been working on the post of Deputy Drugs Controller since 1986 in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (hereinafter referred to as "MHFW"). The petitioner is Non Medical Scientist in the Department of Directorate General Health Services (hereinafter referred to as "DGHS") under the MHFW and was aggrieved by the fact that even though he was inducted into the service by direct recruitment through a rigorous process of selection conducted by UPSC, there was no promotion avenues, when compared with the Non Medical Scientists, employed in other departments of Government of India such as ICMR, AIIMS, or PGI, Chandigarh. Consequently, Dr. O.Z. Hussain, the president of the National Council of Bio-Medical Scientists, filed a Writ Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, 1990 (suppl) SCC 688, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 15th November, 1989. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

(2.) The above directions mandated framing of rules within four months from the date of the judgment delivered on 15th November, 1989 but the rules were framed by the respondents only on 28th November, 1990. Even though rules were formulated, the petitioner got no succour as he was not given the benefit of in- situ promotion as mandated by rules till 2003 even though the vacancy was of the year 1995. The relevant rules under the Department of Health (Group 'A' Gazetted Non Medical Scientific and Technical Posts) in Situ Promotion Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") necessary for the determination of the writ petition, framed pursuant to the mandamus issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, read as under: "In Situ promotion" means personal promotion of a candidate holding any post in Annexure II from the existing Scientist Level to the next higher Scientist Level without any change in the post or in the designation thereof.

(3.) The above rules thus clearly indicate that as per Rule 7 (a) and (b), the Departmental Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "DAB") was required to meet twice in the months of January and July every year and required to draw up the list of officers assessed for in-situ promotion to the next higher grade. Rule 9 clearly indicates that where any officer is promoted under these rules the grade of the officer immediately held by him shall stand upgraded to the next higher level to which he was promoted. Thus, the above rules clearly reflect the rationale of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Ms. Hussain (supra) and are intended to redress promptly the grievance of the petitioner which occurred due to stagnation to the deserving candidates. The very fact that Rule 7 (a) and (b) of the Rules require that DAB for in-situ promotion is required to meet twice a year is sufficiently indicative of the fact that these upgradation had to be done at least twice a year. In spite of the fact that the above Rules indicated a timely appraisal and a consequent benefit subsequent to such appraisal, the benefit was transmitted to the petitioner only in the year 2003. The CAT while considering the above question has detailed the following observations on the issue of promotion: