S HAJA NAJEEMUDEEN Vs. DIRECTOR CENTRAL MARINE FISHERIES RESEARCH INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INDIAN Counsel of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is mandated to promote research and education in all fields relevant to agricultural progress in our country. This was introduced from 1st October, 1975 and came into effect from 1.10.1975. A-1, A-2 and A-3 are the copies of the handbook containing information on the rules and procedures relating to the recruitment, assessment, and promotion of staff belonging to the Technical Services and service conditions. The Five Yearly Assessment form for the Technical personnel (Category II) of ICAR known as Proforma II supplied by the first respondent to the applicant was to be filled in by the concerned parties, copy of which was marked as Annexure A-4. It is alleged in the petition that some of the columns were left blank by the first respondent's office and the form duly filled in had been submitted to the first respondent through proper channel on 15.5.98. The five years assessment period was from 1.1.93 to 31.12.97, during this period, Head of the Division of Fisheries Resources Assessment Division (FRAD for short) under which the applicant was functioning was Dr. K. Alagaraja (for the years 1993 to 1994), Sri K. Balan (for subsequent years 1995 to 1997) and Sri K. Narayana Kurup, Senior Scientist is holding the Headship of the FRAD. On 3.8.1999 one Sri V.A. Narayanan Kutty, Senior Technical Assistant informed the applicant who was on casual leave that Sri K. Narayana Kurup, Head of the Division wanted the applicant to appear before the Assessment Committee and when he entered the room, he saw the Head of Division sitting along with other Committee members. At the gesture of the Head of Division that the applicant's presence there was unwarranted, the applicant immediately left the room and later when he met and enquired from the Head of Division about the happenings, the latter said "I have managed everything and not to worry." On the recommendations of the Assessment Committee, the applicant was granted two advance increments in the existing grade (T-4) Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 with effect from 1.1.1998 vide office order dated 24.9.99 (Annexure A5). Aggrieved by the order, he filed a representation dated 29.9.99 (Annexure A6) which was replied on 8.11.99 vide A-7 order. A-5 and A-7 are the impugned orders which are under challenge. Applicant has contended that Sri Narayana Kurup was not fit to perform civil duties for which he produced A-8 document. He also contended that another person who had been considered was not qualified as per A-9 assessment order. For non-sanctioning of leave, the applicant approached this Tribunal through O.A. No. 1441/98 and by order dated 18.11.98 (A-10) it was granted. The applicant submitted that the documents produced would show that the respondents had ill will towards the applicant. A-11 dated 21.1.99 and A12 representation dated 20.3.99 by which he demanded an impartial inquiry were not being considered by the respondents. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the applicant filed this Original Application for the relief mentioned in column 8 of the O.A. but the at the time of the argument, the Counsel for the applicant submitted that he was pressing prayer (c) which is reproduced as under:

(2.) Respondents 1, 3 and 4 have filed a joint reply statement contending that the Hand Book on Technical Service published in 1978 had been revised in 1985 and modified thereafter. Many amendments had been brought out to the rules already published. As per the Hand Book of Technical Service Rules 1978, there was a system of giving opportunity to assessee for a personal discussion which was limited to Category III only. A copy of the revised guidelines given in the Hand Book published in 1985 is marked as Annexure R-1. The Assessment form that was printed earlier was issued to the applicant without striking out the Col. No. 10 which was inapplicable to Category II by oversight. As per the procedure for Five Yearly Assessment, after the proforma has been completed by the Technical personnel being assessed, it would be sent to the Reviewer who was the immediate supervisor of the Technical personnel concerned and the proforma would be sent to the Head of Division who would record his remarks after going through the self appraisal given by the reviewee and the report of the reviewer. The Director would finally countersign the proforma with his recommendation. The Five Yearly Assessment was done by an "Assessment Committee" constituted, by the Appointing Authority for each professional group/discipline and the Chairman of the Assessment Committee for category I and II should be a person from outside the Institute who would be nominated by the Chairman of the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board, New Delhi and the Committee would include experts in the particular professional group and Head of Divisions concerned in the Institute. The applicant's case for Five Yearly Assessment as on 31.12.97 was placed before the assessment committee for merit promotion to the next higher grade of Technical Officer (T-5)/grant of advance increments. After considering the following documents the Committee recommended for 2 advance increments with effect from 1.1.98:

(3.) HIS organisational abilities/attributes.