OA No.78/2011 on ????? -2012

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE

ORIGINAL  APPLICATION No.78/2011

DATED THIS THE     TH  DAY OF .............. ,  2012

HON'BLE Dr. K.B. SURESH          ...         MEMBER(J)

HON'BLE SMT LEENA MEHENDALE     ...         MEMBER(A)

Dr. Smt. K. Rajlakshmi,

aged about 49 years,

W/o Jagadish,

Working as Reader in the Department of

Audiology, All India Institute of Speech & Hearing,

Nabasa Gangotri, Mysore – 570 006.                   ...                     Applicant

(By Advocate Shri Ranganath Jois)

Vs.

1.The Union of India,

   Rep. by its Secretary,

   Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,

   345 A, Nirman Bhavan,

   Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi – 110 011.

2.The Director,

   All India Institute of Speech & Hearing,

   Manasa Gangotri, Mysore – 570 006.               ...                     Respondents

(By Advocate Shri M. Vasudeva Rao,

Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel)

O R D E R

Hon'ble Smt. Leena Mehendale, Member (A) :

           

            This OA filed on 4.2.2011 under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is with a prayer to quash the Order No. SH/PL.55/ RTI/2010-11, dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure-A/5), whereby the promotion in the cadre of Professor in the scale of Rs.12,375-16500/- has been denied to her.

2.         In brief, the applicant was originally appointed as a Lecturer in Audiology on 6.2.1990 in the All India Institute of Speech & Hearing, Mysore, in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.  She obtained her Ph.D., in the year 1995, while in service.  She was promoted to the post of Reader in 2003, i.e., after 13 years and continues to work in the same post till date.

3.         The applicant claims that she is eligible for the post of Professor in Audiology.  But, the same promotion has been denied to her again and again. 

            (a)       In 2006-07, there was a notification for direct recruitment and 4 of her junior colleagues, namely, Smt. Geetha, Dr. Prema, Dr. Manjula, were selected as Professors as direct recruits.

            (b)       In the year 2008, she submitted her papers for consideration under the "APS" (Assessment Promotion Scheme).  However, another of her junior colleague Mr. Raju was given the promotion.

            (c)        In 2009, there was a Departmental Promotion proceedings and the interview was held on 16.6.2009, and she appeared for the interview, but, was not selected.

            (d)       Once again, on 8.10.2010, she applied for placement under the APS and this time also, she was refused.  Thus, consecutively, for 4 years, she has not been considered for the post of Professor either by way of direct recruitment or by promotion.  She claims that this promotion is denied despite her having acquired the Ph.D., having published the research papers and undertaking research projects.  She also claims that others who were promoted from 2007 to 2010 may not be as qualified as her and sometimes, may not be having the desired eligibility qualifications.  Yet, they have been promoted. 

4.         However, the applicant has not made them a party.  We are inclined to ignore this part of the submission. 

5.         The Respondents submit that under the guidelines for promotion under the APS, the willing candidates are to be assessed on the basis of all the papers submitted by them and they have to secure 60% marks in order to be recommended for promotion as Professor.  The marks are awarded by the Assessment Committee.  For the year 2010, the Assessment Committee consisted of the following:

a)         Additional Secretary (Health)        Chairman

b)         DGHS or his nominee                    Member

c)            Subject Expert -1                             Member

d)         Subject Expert – 2                           Member

e)         Director, AIISH                                  Member-Secretary

6.            The applicant has obtained certain information under the RTI Act as at Annexure-A5, dated 15.07.2010, which she claims that the said Committee has not made any objective assessment.  They have not fixed up the attributes for assessment and therefore, their assessment is subjective and not objective.  On this ground, she claims that the impugned order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure-A/5) should be quashed.

7.            e see from Annexure-A/5, that the marks given to her by the 5 Members of the Committee are 58,55,55,60 and 60 – total 288/500 and the percentage therefore, is 57.6%.  From the reply statement, we find that there appears to be no norms fixed for giving marks in the assessment which were the attributes for assessment by the assessment committee are not clear to us.  Though, it is to be admitted that some kind of subjectivity in granting the marks to the assessee will always be there.  It is the endeavour of any good adminstration to try to improve the percentage of objectivity by laying down the criteria or the attributes that will be taken into consideration while making the assessment.  It is seen from the records that there was no such prescribed norms as to how the assessment will be made.  We find from Annexure-A/4 that in various grounds mentioned by the applicant as her credit, which should have been considered for giving her promotion, a chart has been prepared by the department answering every point raised by her, in which, out of the 10 credits mentioned by her, 6 have been rejected as routine academic activity, but, without bringing on record whether similar routine activities in respect of the other assessees was taken into account for giving promotion.  It is also mentioned at point No.17 that her ACRs for the years 2004,05,06,07 and 08 were "Average".  The respondents have not stated whether such Average remark was communicated to her in time, in order to give her an opportunity to improve her performance.

8.            We have considered all the other documents submitted by both the sides and heard both the counsels.

9.            We direct the respondent department to codify the norms for selection to the post of Professor in Audiology in the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, (this being the unique Institute of its own kind under the Govt. of India), within 3 months and thereafter hold fresh Assessment Committee meeting in the month of August, 2012, and reconsider the case of the applicant.  In case, by applying the norms and in comparison to another person who might have been promoted under the 2010 Assessment Scheme, she is found suitable, she will be given the same date of promotion as is given to such an appointee in 2010.

10.       In view of the above, we allow the OA to the extent stated above. No order as to costs.

                    (LEENA MEHENDALE)                                  (K.B. SURESH) 

                             MEMBER (A)                                             MEMBER (J)

psp.