Bombay High Court
The Chairman, Atomic Energy ... vs Murari Trivedi, Nagpur & Another on 4 January, 2018
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
wp.1990.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1990/2002
1) The Chairman
Atomic Energy Commission and the Secretary
to the Government of India,
Department of Atomic Energy
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg
Mumbai-400 001.
2) The Director,
Atomic Minerals,
Directors for Exploration and Research,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Government of India,
Begumpet, Hyderabad 500 016.
3) The Regional Director
Regional Centre for Exploration and Research
Atomic Minerals
Directorate for Exploration and Research
Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. ..PETITIONERS
versus
1) Shri Murari Trivedi
s/o late Shrinath Trivedi
Ex-Scientic Officer-G
115, Pande Layout
Shivranjani Apartment
P.O. Khamla, Nagpur 440 025.
2) The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Nagpur. .. ..RESPONDENTS
(R-2 deleted as per Court's order
dated 3.9.2002)
...............................................................................................................................................
Mrs.Mugdha Chandurkar, Advocate for the petitioners
None for respondent.
................................................................................................................................................
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 09/01/2018 01:30:15 :::
wp.1990.02
2
CORAM: B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED: 4th January, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has by impugned
judgment and order dated 7.1.2002 directed petitioners to promote
respondent no.1 from 1994 and this direction has been questioned in present
Writ Petition.
2. While issuing 'Rule' in the matter on 3.9.2002, this Court has
passed the following order :
"Respondent no.2 is permitted to be deleted.
Heard.
Rule only on the point of grant of promotions in the
basis of deemed dated promotions for the period from 1993
to 1999. Rest of the orders passed by C.A.T. stands confirmed,
interim relief only to that extent."
3. Thus, prima facie, 'Rule' has been granted only on the point of
grant of deemed date for period from 1993 to 1999.
4. In this backdrop, we have heard Adv.(Mrs)Chandurkar for
petitioners. Nobody appears for respondent no.1. He superannuated way
back in 2002 itself. While issuing limited Rule, this Court has rejected other
wp.1990.02
challenges.
5. Because of this development, counsel for petitioner has invited
our attention to Review DPCs held by petitioners in the years 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Submission is, petitioner was not
found fit as he did not satisfy merit requirement.
6. The merit is evaluated in those exercises by looking at granting
of the incumbent for preceding four years. In year 1993 respondent no.1 could
not be promoted as per review DPC because he had A-2 CR grading in past
four years. In year 1994, review DPC finds that only those having A-1 CRs
grading during preceding four years, could be considered for promotion. In
year 1995, the respondent no.1 could not be promoted because he had two
A-3 gradings and two A-2 gradings, while only those having two A-1 and
two A-2 gradings could be considered. The consideration of other DPCs also
reveals same application of mind. In year 1996, norm was of four A-2 gradings
during preceding four years. In 1997, norm was two A-2 gradings and two
A-3 gradings. In 1998, the Committee has noted that respondent no.1 had
four A-3 grades and mentions that as per approved guidelines, the cases of
officers appointed to Grade SO(F) on 1.8.1989 or earlier were to be
recommended by the Head of the Unit. In 1998, why this position prevailing
10 years back was required to be looked into does not find any mention. In
wp.1990.02
1998 review DPC, there is nothing to show that candidate like respondent no.1
with four A-3s could not have been promoted in that year. The review DPC of
the year 1999, again, warrants identical observations. In 2000, the Committee
has taken note of the fact that Senior Selection Committee had correctly found
respondent no.1 suitable for promotion and accordingly he was recommended
for promotion with effect from 1.8.2000. At that juncture, his CR gradings
were one A-2 and three A-3s. Thus, in year 1998 when he was holding four
A-3s or in the year 1999 when he has holding four A-3s, he could not be
promoted. In the year 1996 when he was holding three A-3s and one A-2,
he could not be promoted. In the year 1995 when he was holding two A-2s
and two A-3s he could not be promoted. In the year 1994 he was having three
A-2s and one A-3 but he could not be promoted. In year 1993 he was having
all A-2 gradings.
7. It is precisely this aspect which has been commented upon by
CAT in its impugned order from paragraph 9 onwards. Lack of transparency in
the procedure and, therefore arbitrariness, has been commented upon.
8. Before us, the judgment delivered at Bombay in Original
Application No.922/1992 in R. Balani vs. Union of India and others, has
been pressed into service. There, there was no challenge to such lack of
transparency or arbitrariness.
wp.1990.02
9. Merit Seniority Scheme produced before us (at Pages 155 and
156) also does not show any such requirement of grading or then restricting
consideration of merit to previous four years.
10. It is apparent that post is filled in only on the basis of merit and,
in that event, merit of all available candidates need to be evaluated. Review
DPC has not pointed out that in the relevant year when candidature of
respondent no.1 was compared with other similarly situated Sos, more
meritorious candidates were available and were promoted. CAT has, while
appreciating Merit Promotion Scheme, taken note of contention of present
petitioners that seniority is not a criterion with some reservations. CAT has
also taken note of plea of petitioners that guidelines for promotion under
Merit Promotion Scheme are framed by Trombay Council of BARC and
approved by the Department. These norms being directly linked to ACR
grading of the candidates are strictly classified and divulged only to Officers
who are required to deal with the cases. CAT has found this also to be curious.
11. Proceedings of Review DPC has disclosed to this Court in
petition, does not enable us to differ with this finding.
12. However, we need not delve more as most of the challenges are
already rejected at threshold, in limine, and petition has been admitted only on
wp.1990.02
deemed date. Taking overall view of the matter, we do not see anything wrong
with the direction of CAT to grant respondent no.1 deemed date from 1994.
13. Adv.(Mrs)Chandurkar, however, wanted leave of this Court
during arguments, to place on record certain other material. Matter is on
Board for final hearing since last several years and we are hearing the matter
almost after 15 to 16 years. The respondent no.1 had retired on 31.1.2002. We
have therefore not permitted her to raise such challenges.
14. In peculiar facts, we make it clear that the judgment delivered by
CAT or our judgment, shall not be used as a precedent and the promotion
rules presented by petitioners shall be examined afresh as per law.
15. With these directions, we dispose of Writ Petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
