MANJURANI ROUTRAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.148 of 2001 disposed of on 4th May, 2005.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she at the time of filing of the Original Application before the Tribunal was working as Principal System Analyst (Scientist 'D.) In terms of the promotion policy laid down by the opposite parties which is otherwise called "Flexible Complementing Scheme", she was eligible for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E in the rank of Technical Officer/Director on completion of four years of service as Scientist 'D/Principal System Analyst. Her case for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E having not been considered by the Selection Committee in the years 2000 and 2001, she approached the Tribunal alleging therein that even though she had the highest qualification amongst all the officials working as Scientist 'D from Orissa State Unit of National Informatics Centre (in short 'NIC), her achievement for the past years had not been given due weightage. She also alleged before the Tribunal that the area in which she was working, is a specialized one and cannot be evaluated properly by the officers not having expertise in that area. The body of Experts, who conducted the interview did not have any expert from the field of her specialization and, therefore, her performance in the interview could not be assessed properly. In the past years, she was not recommended by the Selection Committee even though she had the highest percentage so far as assessment of ACRs is concerned. Her further grievance before the Tribunal was that the selection for the purpose of promotion has been given solely on the basis of assessment of her performance in the interview and the ratings given in the ACRs have not been taken into consideration by the Selection Committee. As it appears from the judgment, the interview took place through video conferencing and it is the case of the petitioner that not a single question was asked relating to her subject but she had answered all the questions put to her through video conferencing. From the above, it appears that the grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that the promotion was being considered solely on the basis of performance in the interview and the performance of four years as Scientist 'D as reflected in the ACRs were not taken into consideration at all.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the percentage of marks fixed by the Selection Committee to qualify in the interview is excessive and, therefore, unreasonable. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that non -consideration of the ratings in the ACRs for the purpose of promotion is unknown to law and when promotion is based solely on the basis of performance in the interview through video conferencing, the possibility of manipulation / favouritism/arbitrariness cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel drew attention of the Court to the Annexures in order to support his submission that from amongst the officers considered for promotion to the post of Scientist 'E, the petitioner was most qualified having Ph.D. She had also got excellent ratings in her ACRs continuously for four years while working as Scientist 'D. On the basis of these documents it was contended that the performance of the petitioner as well as her qualification and competency were over looked and only on the basis of her performance in the interview, she was illegally not recommended by the Selection Committee for promotion.