Delhi High Court
Council Of Scientific And ... vs Gauhar Raza And Anr on 15 July, 2015
$~06.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4047/2011
% Judgment dated 15th July, 2015
COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL
RESEARCH AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate
versus
GAUHAR RAZA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Ananya Bhattacharya, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28.3.2011. The respondent here
was aggrieved by the proceedings of the Pear Committee dated 2.3.2009,
wherein the respondent herein was assessed as not yet fit for promotion
from the Scientist Grade IV (5) to Scientist Grade IV (6), Scientist „G‟ for
the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. Against
the proceedings of the Pear Committee dated 2.3.2009 the respondent
herein filed an OA, which was allowed. The concluding portion of the
order dated 28.3.2011 passed in O.A. reads as under:
"8. In the light of this the OA succeeds and the assessment made
by the Peer Committee in regard to the Applicant for the years from
2003-04 to 2006-07 an (sic. „on‟) 02.03.2009 is quashed and set
aside, with the directions to the Respondents to re-assess the
Applicant for promotion to Scientist IV(6), in accordance with the
un-amended rules of 2001. These directions would be complied
with within two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this
order. There will be no orders as to costs."
2. At the outset, Mr.Kalra, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners
are primarily aggrieved with the directions issued to the petitioners to re-
assess the respondent in accordance with the un-amended rules of 2001.
3. Counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that the real bone of
contention is not the unamended rules, but the manner in which the entire
assessment was carried out with respect to the years from 2003-04 to
2006-07. Counsel also contends that in all fairness the respondent would
not oppose the petition in case a fair re-assessment with respect to the
petitioner‟s work reports is carried out. Counsel for the respondent also
submits that her main grievance has throughout been that the entire
material was either not placed before the Committee or the Committee did
not apply its mind or did not take into account her work material
submitted. Having regard to the fair stand taken by counsel for both the
parties, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to the
petitioners to carry out re-assessment of the respondent‟s assessment for
the years from 2003-04 to 2006-07. The re-assessment will be carried out
on the basis of the entire material supplied by the respondent. The
material will be placed before the Peer Committee. The Peer Committee
shall examine the entire material and while making the re-assessment the
Committee will take into account the material placed before them. The
re-assessment shall be carried out positively within a period of two
months from today.
4. With above directions the present writ petition stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 8391/2011
5. In view of the order passed in WP(C)No.4047/2011 the present
application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
JULY 15, 2015
ssn
