Dr. Ranjana
Agrawal Vs. Union of India & Ors [1996] INSC 72 (16 January 1996)
Nanavati
G.T. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J) Ray, G.N. (J) Nanavati,J.
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 206 JT 1996 (1) 462 1996 SCALE (1)473
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WITH CIVIL
APPEAL NOS 2104-05/1996 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2157-58/1995) Union of India
& Ors. V. Dr. Ranjana Agrawal
Leave
granted.
These
three appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Principal Bench
of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2559/1993 and in Review
Application No.186/1994. Dr. Ranjana Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as the
`appellant') has filed one combined appeal whereas Union of India (hereinafter
referred to as the 'respondents') has filed two separate appeals - one against
the judgment and order passed in the O.A. and the other against the judgment
and order passed in the Review Application. The short question that arises in
these appeals is whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment
made by the Agricultrual Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) of the work done
by the appellant during the relevant period was arbitrary and then directing
the respondents to promote the appellant as S-3 Scientist w.e.f. 1.1.1985, as
recommendations to that effect were made by the Head of the Department and the
Director of the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, under whom
she was working.
The
appellant joined the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in 1972 as
a Statistical Investigator. She was made Junior Statistician in 1974.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) was constituted w.e.f. 1.10.1975, with the
object of giving merit promotion to the Scientists, without their facing
competition from others and on the basis of their own performance. The
appellant was inducted therein as S-1 Scientist. The ARS Rules provide that the
scientist in ARS is to be assessed on a five yearly basis for considering him
for promotion to the next higher grade/giving advance increments on the basis
of his/her performance for that period. The appellant was assessed accordingly
for promotion for the first five-yearly period 1974-1979; and, on being
recommended by the ASRB she was promoted as S-2 Scientist w.e.f. 1.7.1980. She
would have become due for consideration for her next promotion as S-3 Scientist
on completion of 5 years on 30.6.85. Though, according to the rules, seniority
has no relevance for promotion, some Scientists who had joined earlier but were
not promoted before their juniors came to be promoted, filed a Writ Petition in
the Delhi High Court and as a result of the decision given in that case on
5.3.1987 the appellant and other S-1 Scientists were given promotions as S-2
Scientists w.e.f. 1.7.1976. As a result of the pendency of the said Writ
Petition and for certain other reasons, the Assessment Committee of the ASRB
had not met in 1986 nor could it meet till 15.7.1992. The appellant and other
S-1 Scientists were then called upon to submit their performs for assessment
for the period ending on 31st December, 1981 as they had completed five years
as S-2 Scientists on 30.6.1981; but, in view of the subsequent developments,
some S-2 Scientists had also submitted performs and other information regarding
their work for the years 1980 to 1985. The Assessment Committee assessed the
work of all those S-2 Scientists and made certain recommendations. The
appellant was not recommended either for promotion from 1.7.1982 or for advance
increments. The appellant and 4 other Scientists feeling aggrieved by the said
assessment made representations to the ICAR but they were rejected on
24.9.1993. Thereafter the appellant was called upon to submit yearly
supplementary information regarding her work for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984.
The Assessment Committee then met on 27.7.93 and after assessing the work of
the appellant recommended one advance increment for the year 1982 and two
advance increments for the year 1984. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the
earlier result of assessment made on 15.7.1992 and rejection of her
representations against the same and also by the assessment made in September,
1993 challenged them before the Tribunal on the ground that the assessment was
made in an arbitrary manner on the first occasion and that the Assessment Board
was not properly constituted on the second occasion.
From
the material placed before it, the Tribunal found that out of five S-2
Scientists, including the appellant, Dr. A.K.Srivastava had submitted his
assessment performs for the period 1972 to 1982, Dr. Bathla had submitted two
self- assessments -one for the period 1976 to 1981 and the other for the period
1980 to 1985. Dr. Shivtar Singh had filed two self-assessments - one for the
period 1976 to 1981 and the other for the period from 1.7.1982 to 31.12.1985
and the appellant had filed her self-assessment for the period 1976 to 1981.
The Assessment Committee of the ASRB which met on 15.7.1992 had considered the
said material and other relevant information placed before it and had made its
recommendations with respect to all those Scientists for the years 1982, 1983
and 1984. The Tribunal also found that for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 no
yearly self-assessment was called for from the appellant. With respect to Dr. A.K.Srivastava
the Tribunal held that as he was adjudged an outstanding Scientist on the basis
of the assessment of his work for the period 1977 to 1982 he was rightly
cleared for promotion to the Grade of Scientist S-3 w.e.f. 1.1.1983. It,
therefore, did not find any fault with the assessment made by the said
Committee of the work of Dr. A.K.Srivastava. The Tribunal, however, held that
whereas in case of Dr. Bathla and Dr. Shivtar Singh two self-assessments and
that too for overlapping periods were permitted to be filed and considered, in
case of the appellant her self-assessment for the period 1976 to 1981 only was
considered and she was not called upon to submit her yearly assessments for the
years 1982, 1983 and 1984. This, according to the Tribunal, amounted to
adopting different norms qua the Scientists similarly situated and was also in breach
of the rules. Even after holding that the assessment made by the Board was thus
vitiated it did not set at naught the promotion/giving of additional increments
to other S-2 Scientists but thought it fit to direct the respondents to promote
the appellant as S- 3 Scientist w.e.f. 1.1.1985.
The
contention that the 1993 Board was not properly constituted was not raised
before us and it does not appear to have been pressed before the Tribunal. The
only contention raised by the appellant before us is that the Tribunal should
have directed the respondents to promote the appellant as S-3 Scientist with
effect from 1.7.1982 instead of 1.1.1985 as she was recommended for such
promotion both by the Head of the Department and also by the Director of the
Institute wherein she was working right from the year 1982. On the other hand,
what the respondents have contended is that it was not legal and proper for the
Tribunal to direct the respondents to promote the appellant w.e.f. 1.1.1985. as
at the most the respondents could have been directed to reconsider the case of
the appellant in accordance with the rules.
As
stated earlier, the ASRB was constituted on 1.10.1975 and the appellant and
other similarly situated Scientists were made a part of that service and trated
as S- 1 Scientists. They became due for consideration for promotion to the next
grade of S-2 Scientists on expiry of 5 years in 1980. The appellant was in fact
considered and promoted as S-2 Scientist w.e.f. 1.7.1980. The other Scientists
were also similarly considered and promoted as S- 2 Scientists on or about the
same time. They would have become due for consideration for the next promotion
to the grade of S-3 Scientists/additional increments on completion of 5 years
in 1985. However, the aforesaid decision by the Delhi High Court resulted in
their quick promotion as S-2 Scientists w.e.f. 1.7.1976. All these S-2
Scientists, however, could not be considered for further promotion/additional
increments earlier than 15.7.1992 in view of the circumstances pointed out
above. The Board had called for the assessment performs from these Scientists
in March 1992. The appellant rightly submitted her assessment performs for the
period 1976 to 1981 but Dr. Bathla and others thought it wiser not only to
submit their assessment performs for that period but also for the period 1980
to 1985 as they would have become due for consideration for promotion to the
higher grade of S-3 Scientists on the basis of their performs for the 5 years
from 1980 to 1985 but for the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court and
their quick promotion as S-2 Scientists w.e.f. 1.7.1976. The Tribunal was
unable to appreciate this action of other S-2 Scientists and proceeded to hold
that consideration of the said material was not only discriminatory and
arbitrary but also in breach of the rules. The Tribunal rightly observed that
the Board should have given the appellant an opportunity to submit her yearly
performs for the subsequent period upto December 1984 so as to see that all
those Scientists were considered on an equal basis. However, the Tribunal
failed to appreciate that though the representations made by the appellant
against the assessment made in September 1992 were rejected, not only the
assessment of the appellant but the assessment of all other S-2 Scientists was
cancelled by the ICAR as it had come to its notice that the relevant material
for considering the appellant for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984 was not before
the ASRB. The Tribunal did take note of the fact that the result of the appellant
was declared null and void but failed to appreciate that the result of other
S-2 Scientists was also declared null and void and whatever promotions or
additional increments were given to them were on the basis of fresh
consideration by the Board in the year 1993. Those Scientists had applied to
the Board to review its decision; and that was done in accordance with the
rules. The appellant did not apply for a review probably because she had not
submitted her self-assessments for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984. After the
result of her assessment was declared null and void, the Board told her to
submit her self-assessment performs for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984.
She
did submit those performs and appeared before the Assessment Committee of the
Board when it met again in 1993.
When
the appellant was again considered in 1993 she was considered on the same basis
on which the other S-2 Scientists were considered. In case of Scientists of
ICAR promotion to next higher grade is not given on the basis of comparative
assessment but by assessment of their own work during the 5 year period in one
grade. The procedure adopted by the Board at that time was neither arbitrary
nor in breach of the rules. The Tribunal failed to appreciate these relevant
aspects of the matter. Therefore, its order deserves to be set aside.
In the
result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the appeals filed by
the respondents are allowed. The order of the Tribunal directing the
respondents to give promotion to the appellant as S-3 Scientist w.e.f. 1.1.1985
is set aside. In view of the facts of the case, the parties are directed to
bear their own costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2