@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. Questioning the legality of the order dated 27th December, 2013 passed in O.A.No. 644 of 2011 by the Madras Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner herein/applicant therein, has come up with this petition.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner while working as Senior Scientific Officer, filed the original application on 15.3.2011 claiming promotion to the next higher grade T.7-8 with effect from 03.02.2005 with all consequential benefits, including arrears of wages, seniority. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Officer on 6.4.1992 through direct recruitment, thereafter promoted to T.6 on 04.10.2000 in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has acquired all requisite qualification for further promotion as having M.Sc degree and also acquired P.hd. subsequently. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. After completion of five years of service as Technical Officer in T.6, the petitioner was entitled to T.7-8 with effect from 03.02.2005.
3. As per the pleadings in the Original Application, the gradings of the petitioner was as under :
2000-2001 - Good (Average has been revised)
2001-2002 - Very good
2002-2003 - Good
2003-2004 - Good
2004-2005 - Very good
4. The case of the petitioner along with nine other candidates was considered for merit promotion or advance increments by the Committee comprising of eminent members, nominated by the Agricultural Scientists'' Recruitment Board (ASRB). The Five Yearly Assessment Committee held its meeting on 03.12.2005 and 05.12.2005 for assessing the applicant along with other nine candidates. The committee made the following recommendation in respect of the petitioner :
"Not recommended for promotion for following reason.
1. He does not have 03 very good grades during assessment period.
Recommended for TWO ADVANCE INCREMENTS in present grade.
02 ADV INCREMENTS wef 03-02-2005."
5. The recommendation of the said committee was approved by the Appointing Authority vide letter dated 12.07.2006 and the petitioner was accordingly informed vide letter dated 22.7.2006. Accordingly, his pay was also fixed by office order dated 29.5.2007. The petitioner was again assessed by the Committee in its meeting held on 03.12.2008 for promotion with effect from 03.02.2006. He was recommended for promotion on the basis of the marks of the members and upgraded bench mark from "good" to "very good" for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04. The competent authority did not accept the recommendation of the Committee, granting merit promotion and the Committee was requested to consider the case again. The petitioner was again informed the result vide office order dated 27.02.2009. Thereafter, one more D.P.C was held on 29.8.2009 for assessing the eligibility of merit promotion with effect from 03.02.2007 and 03.02.2008, but the petitioner was not found fit for promotion. The petitioner was again informed by office order dated 21.10.2009.
6. The Tribunal, having considered all aspects of the matter, held as under:
"....... if the Applicant could not be considered fit for promotion despite this upgradation of the ACRs in his case, he cannot fault the authorities/Committee. He should have represented for upgradation the moment he came to know about the below Benchmark gradings or even earlier when he did not get the promotion following the meetings of the Assessment Committee held in 2005, 2008 and 2009. The 2nd and 3rd assessment (in 2008 and 2009) was done with the knowledge of the Applicant as he had submitted self-appraisal report for the same, and he cannot plead that he was in the dark about these events. To claim promotion with retrospective effect at this distance of time on the specious plea that the below Benchmark gradings were not communicated to him then and there would be to seek an undue benefit when the Assessment Committee had taken the overall performance into account in which the ACR grading was only one element and the Applicant had adequate time to make a representation against his non-selection/promotion."
Thus, this writ petition by the petitioner.
7. The contention of the writ petitioner before this Court was mainly on the ground that the petitioner was not informed the gradings in the ACR, which was below benchmark, in advance and as such, the same was contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
8. On the other hand, it is stated in the reply filed by respondents 1 and 2 that the procedure for assessment incorporated in Appendix-III of the Technical Service Rules of ICAR, which provides criteria for five /seven yearly assessment of Technical personnel in category III by the duly constituted Assessment Committee, is as under :
"i)Professional performance in relation to the duties and tasks assigned;
ii) Spirit of co-operation and team-work and support to scientific work;
iii) Personal / behavioural abilities / attributes;
iv) Managerial / organisational abilities / attributes."
9. For the purpose of assessment of merit promotion or grant of advance increments, emphasis is laid on the contribution and achievements of the individual in relation to the requirements of the job and duties assigned for the post, for which he was to be recruited. The Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), Union Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, vide notification dated 27.03.2001 has framed its own rules and guidelines for assessment of its technical employees. The notification dated 8.2.2002 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), is not applicable to the technical employees of ICAR.
10. It is further submitted that as per para 3(vii) of the notification dated 27.3.2001 issued by the DARE, the circular dated 10.10.1991 and repeated in circular dated 25.2.2004 issued by the ICAR, the Departmental Promotion Committee / Assessment Committee, as the case may be, is constituted to make its own assessment on the basis of the entire report, instead of relying blindly on the grading indicated by the reporting or reviewing officer and these instructions are being strictly followed, so that the grading is authentically considered by the Appointing authority while considering the recommendation of the assessment committee for approval.
11. Further contention of the respondents is that the petitioner was not granted benchmark average during the period 2000-01 and it was, thereafter, reviewed by the reviewing authority, i.e., Director, ICAR, by upgrading the benchmark to Good. In respect of grant of claim of having four "very good" benchmarks, it was stated by the respondents that the petitioner was not awarded "very good" for the year 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2003-04. The ACR was as under :
12. The Assessment Committee meeting held on 03.12.2008 upgraded the gradings for the reporting year 2002-03 and 2003-04 in respect of the petitioner and also other technical officers, namely, Mrs.Sunita Chouhan, Dr.Ram Ratan and S.K.Sidana.
13. It is lastly contended that the petitioner made the claim only in 2009 for promotion with effect from 03.02.2005 after a period of four years and thereafter, filed the application only in 2011. In the meantime, the other competent people have been promoted and have secured their place. Thus, at this belated stage, the application was rightly rejected on the ground of principle of acquiescence and undue inordinate laches and delay also.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is indisputable that as per the averments of the petitioner himself, the petitioner has made the representation to the authorities for reconsideration of the gradings and as such, the authorities have reconsidered the said benchmark for assessment and the assessment was considered, which was not approved. Thus, the ratio laid down in Dev Dutt(supra) , is not applicable to the facts of the case.
15. The case of the petitioner was properly considered by the Assessment Committee and he was rightly recommended for grant of two advance increments with effect from 03.02.2005. It is not a case where the case of the petitioner has been ignored on any ground, including the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The consideration was not only on the basis of ACR gradings, but overall assessment on the basis of professional performance in relation to the duties and tasks assigned, spirit of cooperation and team-work and support to scientific work, personal / behavioural abilities / attributes and managerial / organisational abilities / attributes. The petitioner was not found fit for promotion accordingly. The petitioner has failed to establish that there was malafide exercise of power or the merit of the petitioner has been ignored.
16. It is a trite law that it is the discretion of the assessing authorities, comprising of experts in the field, to assess the competence of candidates on the basis of various factors. The same cannot be interfered with unless it is tainted with malafide exercise of power or on extraneous consideration. No material of such nature is either pleaded or established in this case. The learned Tribunal has rightly examined all the facts of the case before dismissing the application.
17. Yet another aspect is the delay and laches. The petitioner was communicated the decision of the assessment committee held on 03.12.2005 and 05.12.2005, whereunder the recommendation to grant two advance increments with effect from 03.02.2005 was made, vide office order dated 22.7.2006. The petitioner did not take any steps, but slept over his rights. Thereafter, only after a period of almost five years, the petitioner knocked the door of the Tribunal by filing the instant application, claiming the relief from the back date.
18. It is beneficial to quote the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."
19. As a sequel, after examining all aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the petition sans merit and also suffers on account of laches and inordinate delay. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
