w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Prof (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai, Head (Retired) Research & Business Development Division CSIR-NISCAIR, New Delhi v/s Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR), New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- J. H. BUSINESS (INDIA) LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U24293DL1999PLC099782

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27100MH2004PLC149538

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29300PB1996PLC017836

Company & Directors' Information:- V T INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74990TN2010PLC078041

Company & Directors' Information:- A G RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85120TG2014PTC093661

Company & Directors' Information:- G B BUSINESS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1983PLC036744

Company & Directors' Information:- R P BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210AS2000PTC006302

Company & Directors' Information:- S N M BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1997PTC085308

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63090WB1992PTC056995

Company & Directors' Information:- B P INDUSTRIAL CORPN. PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U15312UP1973PTC087037

Company & Directors' Information:- M L B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB2000PTC091878

Company & Directors' Information:- J F C BUSINESS LTD [Active] CIN = U17125WB1990PLC048495

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z BUSINESS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51909TZ2008PTC014261

Company & Directors' Information:- S V BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27310WB1984PTC038146

Company & Directors' Information:- R R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2007PTC176588

Company & Directors' Information:- M R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109WB1994PTC064165

Company & Directors' Information:- J C BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55101AS2009PTC008974

Company & Directors' Information:- D & B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909PB2010PTC033901

Company & Directors' Information:- THE NEW INDIA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL1950PLC001757

Company & Directors' Information:- A V A INDUSTRIAL CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191TZ1956PTC000261

Company & Directors' Information:- I AND D RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2003PTC118439

Company & Directors' Information:- P N S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140WB2005PTC101643

Company & Directors' Information:- M S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH1997PTC111137

Company & Directors' Information:- J S B BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1996PTC078319

Company & Directors' Information:- M. L. G. BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101UP2010PTC040398

Company & Directors' Information:- A V S BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31908UP2010PTC040437

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U15420MH1921PTC000947

Company & Directors' Information:- A C BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45208MH2009PTC197088

Company & Directors' Information:- V K BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U21012WB1996PTC079121

Company & Directors' Information:- S P A BUSINESS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29296WB1990PTC050043

Company & Directors' Information:- A D BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900MH2008PTC178245

Company & Directors' Information:- A V R BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74992UP2008PTC034629

Company & Directors' Information:- C K BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U51399DL2003PTC118289

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND D BUSINESS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52300KA2010PTC053211

Company & Directors' Information:- D D INDUSTRIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34102DL2006PTC156978

Company & Directors' Information:- BUSINESS CORPN PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15429UP1945PTC001335

Company & Directors' Information:- J B RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74920MH2005PTC158461

Company & Directors' Information:- M M BUSINESS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB2005PTC106884

Company & Directors' Information:- L K BUSINESS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202WB1985PTC038604

Company & Directors' Information:- E D S C RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72901DL2006PTC148635

Company & Directors' Information:- K T T SCIENTIFIC PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909KL1996PTC009973

Company & Directors' Information:- C L BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000WB2014PTC202032

Company & Directors' Information:- A. P. V. BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14299RJ2017PTC058759

Company & Directors' Information:- A K INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29130PN2014PTC151053

Company & Directors' Information:- J V B BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2016PTC282145

Company & Directors' Information:- U & C BUSINESS CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909TG2014PTC095129

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M G BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51909UP2013PTC055405

Company & Directors' Information:- U K BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2016PTC086597

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 J BUSINESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2014PTC269045

Company & Directors' Information:- U 2 RESEARCH PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2008PTC179902

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1938PLC000231

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL UNION PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U91110KL1901PTC000443

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00804KA1948PLC000529

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74900KL1946PTC000457

Company & Directors' Information:- S B INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO. PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45208WB1945PTC012688

    OA. No. 1652 of 2020 & M.A. No. 2234 of 2020

    Decided On, 25 January 2021

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
    By, CHAIRMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. A.K. BISHNOI
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Applicant: Romy Chacko with Mukund P. Unny, Advocates. For the Respondents: S.N. Verma, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Order (Oral):L. Narasimha Reddy, J, (Chairman).1. The applicant joined the service of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in 1992 as Scientist. He was promoted to the post of Senior Scientist in 2012. The CSIR framed the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Assessment Promotion Rules, 2001 (for short the Rules) providing for promotion of Scientist at various levels, under Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS). The applicant became entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Scientist in June, 2016. His case was considered in accordance with the rules, and through a communication dated 09.06.2020, he was informed that the Peer Committee has expresses its view that he is not yet fit for promotion. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the applicant filed OA No.1015/2020. That was disposed of on 11.08.2020 with a direction to the respondents to pass reasoned order on the representation submitted by the applicant. In compliance with the same, the respondents passed a detailed order dated 24.09.2020 rejecting the representation of the applicant. This OA is filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2020.2. The applicant contends that his ACRs for the period between 2011 to 2017 were rated as Outstanding, and his working was also of high caliber for the relevant period. He further contends that the Peer Committee came to be constituted in compliance with the directions issued by the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal and there was an improper assessment of his performance. He further mentions that a group of experts have recommended his case for extension of service beyond the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.01.2019 and, that itself shows the merit to his credit.3. Though the respondents were given number of opportunities, they did not file the reply.4. Today we heard the arguments of Shri Romy Chako, learned counsel for Shri Mukund P. Unny, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.5. The basic facts are not in dispute. The applicant joined the service of CSIR in 1992, and was promoted to the post of Senior Scientist, in 2012. The rules provide for further promotion to the post of Chief Scientist under the FCS, on completion of four years of service. In the case of the applicant, the consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Scientist took place in August, 2016. The selection is in two stages.6. At the first stage, the Recruitment and Assessment Board processed the file and assigned marks to different features, as provided under the rules. It is only when a Senior Scientist secures the marks in terms of Rule 7 (4) of the Rules, that he is listed for being considered at the 2nd stage, by the Peer Committee. The applicant was successful at the first stage. However, the Peer Committee which dealt with the case of the applicant found him not yet fit for promotion. Here again, there are certain parameters.7. For example, if the candidate under consideration gets one mark below the threshold set for that purpose, he would be considered in the next year. It is only when the difference is more than two marks, that the candidate is declared as not fit for promotion. In the instant case, the applicant has been awarded marks, which are more than two below the threshold marks.8. It is no doubt true that the applicant raised several contentions in his representation. However, it is fairly well settled that the judicial review into the matters of this nature is not only very restricted but also, in certain cases, completely ruled out. An expert body, such as Peer Committee is conceded full freedom and liberty to make its own assessment. It is only when an aggrieved candidate attributes motives or mala fides to any members of the committee and makes him a party to the proceeding before a Court, that an occasion may arises for examining that issue.9. In the instant case, the applicant did not attribute motive to any members of the Peer Committee. The applicant may have his own view about the nature of his work or the merit thereof. Ultimately what counts, is the satisfaction of the Peer Committee. The order dated 09.06.2020 discloses that four Senior Scientists were considered for promotion to the post of Chief Scientist, and none of them were found fit for promotion. That only shows the level of standards that are applied for evaluation of the performance and work. The applicant is not singled out in that process. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any legal or factual error or flaw in the assessment and evaluation made by the Peer Committee. We do not find any basis to interfere with the impugned order.10. Before parting with the case, we intend to make an observation about Rule 8.2 of the Rules. The same reads as under:-“Those of Scientists, who leave the service of CSIR on their own volition including voluntary retirement shall not be entitled for any assessment over and above the assessment (s) if any, already availed even if it may relate to the period when they were in CSIR service. However, those scientists who superannuate or pass away while in service shall be considered for assessment from the due date of eligibility. The cases of the deceased shall be decided by the Assessment Board on the basis of their Annual Confidential Appraisal Reports.”11. It enables the conferment of the benefits of promotion not only to a retired Scientist, but also a deceased Scientist. It does not appear that the attention of the rule making authority was invited to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. K. K. Vadera and Ors. 1989 SCC Suppl.(2) 625. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the question of a retired person being promoted does not arise. The only exception recognized in that behalf is, where a junior to the retired officer was promoted to the next higher post, with effect from a date anterior to the one, on which the senior retired. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under:-“There is no statutory provision that the promotion to the post of Scientist 'B' should take effect from 1st July of the year in which the promotion is granted. It may be that, rightly or wrongly, for some reason or other, the promotions were granted from 1st July, but we do not find any justifying reason for the direction given by the Tribunal that the promotions of the respondents to the posts of Scientists 'B' should be with effect from the date of the creation of these promotional posts. We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is diff

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

icult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal.”12. We are aware of the fact that the upward movement under the rules is personal to the Scientist and not based upon any seniority. At the same time, it must not be ignored that the conferment of a higher position on being assessed after thorough assessment is not an empty formality. The person so conferred the benefit, must be able to discharge his functions in that office which, in turn, would help the organization. If the promotions are accorded even to a deceased person, it would not be a proper honour to those who are conferred with such benefit. This, however, is a matter to be examined by the CSIR.13. We do not find any merit in the OA. It is accordingly dismissed.Pending MA No.2234/2020 shall stand disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs.
O R