LexTHE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & OTHERS versus D. SUNDARA RAJU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- [2011] 4 S.C.R. 95 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & OTHERS v. D. SUNDARA RAJU (Civil Appeal No. 2714 of 2005) MARCH 30, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] SERVICE LAW: Career Advancement Scheme (formulated by Indian Council for Agricultural Research): A B c Para 2.4 - Agricultural Research Services - Senior Scientist - Promotion as Principal Scientist - Selection Committee prescribing 50 marks for viva voce out of total 100 D marks - Officer securing total 49 marks not found fit - CAT quashed the order and directed consideration of officer for promotion - High Court held that Career Advancement Scheme did not sanction the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee - Held: Promotion to the post of E Principal Scientist pertains to the "Career Advancement Scheme» - Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are employed while granting benefit of Career Advancement Scheme ought to be applied in the instant case - Allocation of 50% marks for interview was unjustified, particularly when F the officer was not even disclosed that interview would also be held to evaluate suitability of the candidate - The procedure adopted by Selection Committee for evaluating the officer was totally arbitrary and contrary to the settled legal ·position - No interference with the judgment of High Court G called for. The respondent, a Senior Scientist in the Agricultural Research Services Cadre, was called upon to present 95 H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 4 S.C.R. A himself for assessment and interview for his promotion as Principal Scientist in terms of the Career Advancement Scheme. The respondent appeared before the Selection Committee, but he was found unfit as he secured only 49 marks out of 100 marks, the minimum qualifying marks B being 60. The respondent filed an O.A before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the order of the appellant-authorities and directed them to consider the case of the respondent for promotion. The writ petition filed by the authorities was dismissed by the High Court c holding that Career Advancement Scheme did not sanction the procedure which was adopted by the Selection Committee. Aggrieved, the authorities filed the appeal. D Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 No interference with the judgment of the High Court is called for the following reasons: (A) Promotion to the post of Principal Scientist E pertains to the "Career Advancement Scheme". Norms, Rules and Guidelines which are employed while granting the benefit of Career Advancement Scheme ought to be applied in the instant case. (B) It is amply clear that the quinquennial assessment F scheme for the ICAR/ARS Policies and Rules were: (a) for providing opportunities for the career advancement, irrespective of the occurrence of vacancies, through a system of assessment should lead to each scientist competing with his or her rather than with colleagues and G to the acceptance of the principle that "all the rights accrue from a duty well done"; (b) to enable scientists to get the highest salary possible, within the system while remaining rooted to work in their respective discipline/ field, thereby eliminating both the undue importance H attached in the past to research management policy and -- -- DIR. GEN., INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RES. 97 v. D. SUNDARA RAJU the request for such positions purely for the A advancement of salary; and (c) to link rights and responsibilities and instill through the five-year assessment system the conviction that dedicated and efficient discharge of responsibilities alone would be the means of securing professional advancement (para 45· B 46] [114-G-H; 15-A-G] 1.2 The procedure evolved by the Selection Committee for evaluating the respondent was totally arbitrary and allocation of 50% marks for the interview C was highly excessive and contrary to the settled legal position crystallized from a series of the judgment of this Court. The respondent was not disclosed by the appellant either that the interview would be held for evaluating personal or intellectual qualities that attribute a Scientist and that it shall carry 50% of the total marks. D This is uncontroverted position. Had the appellants disclosed the method of evaluation the respondent may have challenged the same before participating in the selection process. The appellants themselves have found 50%
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.