N NANJAPPA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of certiorari to quash the decision/recommendation taken in the meeting of External Screening Committee held on 22.6.2015 in so far as it recommended that the case of the petitioner for promotion be deferred; a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for promotion to the post of Engineer 'C' (Mechanical) and declare the result of the Screening Committee held on 12.2.2016; grant promotion to the petitioner to the aforesaid post from the date as and when he became eligible for promotion; and, accordingly, pay him all the consequential benefits.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an advertisement was issued by the respondents in the year 2011-12 inviting applications for the post of Mechanical Engineer 'B'. The petitioner participated in the selection process, and was appointed as Mechanical Engineer 'B' in which post he joined on 16.2.2012. Promotion from the post of Scientist/Engineer 'B' is to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'. The requirement, for being considered for promotion from Scientist/Engineer 'B' to Scientist/Engineer 'C', is a minimum residency period, linked to performance, of 3 years. Persons, who completed 3 years' residency period, were required to be assessed at two levels; firstly at the internal level for screening purposes and, thereafter, by an External Screening Committee to be formed by the appointing authority to assess the person whose promotion was due. The benchmark to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C' from the post of Scientist/Engineer 'B' is 'good', and for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'D' and above, the benchmark is 'very good'.

(3.) On the petitioner having completed 3 years of service in Feb., 2015, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Scientist/Engineer 'C'. The Director of the Institute, by his order dated 29.5.2015, constituted an Internal Screening Committee to assess the incumbents who had completed 3 years' residency period, and were qualified for promotion. The Internal Screening Committee evaluated and assessed the petitioner and awarded him 56 marks out of 100, which corresponds to a benchmark of 'good'. The External Screening Committee met on 22.6.2015 and, on evaluating the work and performance of petitioner in the last 3 years, also awarded him 'good' and gave him 5 marks out of 10. It, however, observed that it was not happy with his performance in the interaction and felt that petitioner needs to improve his attitude towards work as well as gain deeper understanding of mechanical system design and evaluation. The External Screening Committee therefore, while evaluation the petitioner to be Good (05 out of 10 marks) grade, recommended that, at present, his case be deferred.