http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: DR. RANJANA AGRAWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/01/1996

BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. (J) RAY, G.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 206        JT 1996 (1)   462  1996 SCALE  (1)473

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NOS 2104-05/1996           (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.2157-58/1995) Union of India & Ors. V. Dr. Ranjana Agrawal                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI,J.      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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.