Ashok Kumar Gehlot vs Indian Council Of Agricultural Research And Ors

Sandeep Mehta, J

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Ashok Kumar Gehlot being aggrieved of the order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.431/2013.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are noted hereinbelow:

The petitioner claims to be possessing the qualification of Higher Secondary and a two years certificate in Draftsman Civil from ITI Jodhpur.

Having faced the due process of selection, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Tracer in the respondent Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur w.e.f. 28.02.1980. He was promoted to the post of T-2 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Being qualified on all aspects, the petitioner was appointed on the post of T-2 in the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2300/- w.e.f. 08.08.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was assessed under the Career Advancement Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'the CAS') of Technical employes and was promoted on the post of T-4 in the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 01.01.1995. Again, having been assessed under the CAS, the petitioner was promoted on the post of T-5 in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- w.e.f. 01.01.2000. Finally, by effect of the CAS, and upon recommendations of the Assessment Committee, upon completion of 10 years service in the T-5 Grade, by virtue of an order dated 12.07.2011, the petitioner was promoted on the post of T-6 in the Pay Band 3 of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 01.01.2010. More than three years thereafter, the respondents issued a notice dated 02.08.2013 to the petitioner requiring him to show cause as to why the office order dated 12.07.2011 whereby, the petitioner had been promoted to the post of T-6 in the Pay Band 3 should not be withdrawn. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice claiming that he had been granted promotion in an absolutely justified lawful manner. He had completed 10 years satisfactory service in the T-5 Grade whereafter, he was promoted to T-6 Grade after having been assessed positively by the duly constituted assessment committee applying the relevant circulars issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. He claimed to have satisfactorily worked on the post of T-6 for three years and sought withdrawal of the notice. The petitioner claims that without properly considering the reply submitted by him, the respondents issued the order dated 24.09.2013 whereby, the petitioner was reverted from the post of T-6 to T-5. Being aggrieved of the said order, the petitioner preferred an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench wherein, initially an interim stay order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Original Application came to be rejected by the order dated 11.03.2019 whereby, the office order dated 24.09.2013 reverting the petitioner from the post of T-6 to T-5 was affirmed. Being aggrieved of these orders, the instant writ petition has been preferred.

The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition claiming that the order dated 24.09.2013 is absolutely justified and lawful. It is stated that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification so as to be promoted to the Post of T-6 Grade and as such, referring to Technical Service Rules dated 03.02.2000, the respondents have supported the impugned orders to the hilt.

Shri S.K. Malik, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently urged that the respondents have committed grave error while reverting the petitioner from the post of T-6 to T-5 while wrongly applying the Clause (a) of the relevant service rule. The reply of the petitioner was not properly considered. The respondents applied Clause (a) of the relevant statutory provisions which deals with promotion of Technical Personnel in T-5 Grade to T-6 Grade having essential qualifications for Category III post only after serving for 5 years in the T-5 Grade. Part (b) deals with such Technical Personnel who do not possess the essential qualification as for direct recruitment to Category III and such persons, are entitled to the assessment promotion to T-6 Grade after completing 10 years of service in T-5 Grade provided that they are possessing qualification for direct recruitment for the category II. He urged that the petitioner undoubtedly and unquestionably, has the qualification for direct recruitment to category II (T-3). There is no dispute about this fact and that is why, the petitioner was duly promoted to the posts of T-3, T-4 and T-5 without any objection whatsoever. The requirement of having the qualifications for direct recruitment for category III only comes into picture when the employee claims promotion to T-6 after completion of only 5 years service. He urges that as the petitioner had completed 10 years of service on the post of T-5, for the purpose of his promotion to T-6 Grade, Clause (b) of the Rules would apply which entitles the petitioner to be promoted and as such, Shri Malik vehemently and fervently urged that the respondents were absolutely unjustified and acted arbitrarily and capriciously while reverting the petitioner and that the Tribunal also fell in the same error.

In support of his contentions, Shri Malik placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in a bunch of writ petitions lead by WP(c) No.4431/2014 and CM No.8855/2014 (Indian Council of Agricultural Reserach & Anr. vs. Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena), decided on 31.07.2017 involving similar controversy wherein, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi decided the controversy in favour of the employees at par with the petitioner and the High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders while affirming the promotion of the petitioner on the post of T-6 Grade.

Per contra, Shri Ashok Chhangani and Avin Chhangani, Advocates representing the respondents vehemently and fervently urged that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications so as to be promoted on the T-6 Grade and as such, the respondents were absolutely justified in reverting him by the impugned order. As per them, the orders under challenge are perfectly just and legal and do not warrant any interference whatsoever.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

The controversy involved in the case at hand hovers around the applicability of Rules governing promotion of the Technical Personnel from T-5 Grade to T-6 Grade. The revised rules as referred to in the order of the Tribunal are in two parts i.e. Part (a) and Part (b) which are being reproduced verbatim for the sake of ready reference:

"a) The technical personnel in T-5 grade (Rs.6,500-10,500) and possessing the essential qualifications prescribed as hereinfurther under this order for Category III for direct recruitment, shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 (Rs.8,000-13,500) grade after completing five years of service.

b) the T-5 technical personnel who do not possess the essential qualifications as for direct recruitment prescribed hereinfurther under this order for Cat.III shall be eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 grade after completing 10 years of service in T-5 grade provided such technical personnel are possessing the qualifications prescribed under this order for direct recruitment to Category II (T-3).

However, such technical personnel in T-5 grade who do not possess the qualifications prescribed under this order for direct recruitment to Category II (T-3) shall not be eligible for further assessment promotion to Category III for further assessment promotion to Category III of the Technical Services."

There is no dispute between the parties that the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications for direct recruitment to the category II (T-3) and that he was appointed to the said post with effect from 08.08.1989. The Clause (a) of the Rules, referred to supra, deals with the promotion of the Technical Personnel who possess the essential qualification for direct recruitment to the Category III. Such persons having completed "5 years of service" would become eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 Grade. Thus, the period of acquiring eligibility for assessment promotion in this category would be only 5 years and would be available to such persons who have the requisite qualification for direct recruitment for the category III posts. Admittedly, the petitioner is not having the said qualification and thus, this part of the Rule would not apply to his case. Nonetheless, as per Clause (b) of the Rule, the T-5 Technical Personnel who do not possess the essential qualification for direct recruitment on the Category III posts have also been made eligible for Assessment promotion to T-6 Grade after completing "10 years of service" in T-5 Grade provided that such Technical Personnel possess the qualifications for direct recruitment to Category II. Since, it is not in dispute that the petitioner does possess the qualification for Category II (T-3) and as he was indisputably appointed to the said post in the year 1989, the case of the petitioner clearly falls under Clause (b) of the Rule, referred to supra. On completion of 10 years of satisfactory service in the T-5 Grade, the petitioner undoubtedly became eligible for assessment promotion to T-6 Grade. The respondent authorities assessed the case of the petitioner and passed the order dated 12.07.2011 promoting the petitioner to the T-6 Grade.

The notice dated 02.08.2013 mentions that the assessment/ merit promotion was wrongly acceded to the petitioner. The notice is totally vague and does not elaborate the reasons for which, the petitioner had been held to be disqualified from promotion. The petitioner admittedly gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice mentioning that he fulfills the prescribed qualification for entering Category II (T-3) by direct recruitment and was rightfully promoted to T-6 Grade. The respondent authorities considered the reply of the petitioner in an absolutely lackadaisical manner and passed a totally non-speaking reversion order dated 24.09.2013 which reads as below:

"Consequent upon Office Memorandum No. 2-783/79-Adm.I dated 2.8.2013 and in pursuance to Technical Service Rules effective from 3.2.2000 for entering into Cat-II under functional Group- "Workshop Staff" the assessment promotion in respect of Sh. Ashok Kumar Gehlot to the post of T-6 wef 1.1.2010 was found erroneous and need to be reviewed. Accordingly an Office Memorandum was served giving him opportunity to represent. His representation against the O.M. dated 2.8.2013 and onward reply dated 16.8.2013 subsequently has been examined and not found sustainable.

Therefore, in order to comply with the provision as per Technical Service Rules effective from 3.2.2000, the undersigned has decided to withdraw the Office Order No.F.8-4/Asses./2008-11-Adm.I dated 12.7.2011.

Accordingly his pay will be fixed as per relevant Rules.".

Manifestly, by the effect of this order, the petitioner was reverted from T-6 Grade to T-5 Grade. On a bare perusal of the above order, it is clear that neither the provisions of the Rules were considered nor the reply of the petitioner was properly considered while passing the said order.

As has been elaborated above, the petitioner unquestionaly holds the entitlement for assessment promotion to T-6 Grade upon having completed 10 years service in the T-5 Grade. The respondent authorities have themselves, not taken any such objection in the reply that the assessment promotion which was afforded to the petitioner suffers from any procedural or other irregularity. The only reason offered in the reply for justifying the impugned action is that the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification so as to be promoted on the T-6 Grade. However, as has been observed above, even those persons who are not having the qualification for direct recruitment in the category III Grade are entitled to be considered for assessment promotion with the only condition being that they would have to put in 10 years of services in the T-5 Grade as opposed to the other category (Category III qualified persons) who would be entitled for consideration after completion of 5 years of services in the T-5 Grade.

An identical controversy arose before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi which decided the issue in favour of the employees. The matter was carried to the Delhi High Court which rejected the writ petitions by its order dated 31.07.2017.

In view of the discussion made herein above, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned orders do not stand to scrutiny and deserve to be struck down.

Thus, the impugned order dated 11.03.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.431/2013 is hereby quashed and struck down. As a consequence, the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the Director, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur is also quashed and struck down. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.

The writ petition is allowed in these terms.

No order as to costs.