OP (CAT) Nos. 23/2019, 45/2019 & 62/2019 - Jiju K., Brijesh P., Girish K. v Union of India & CDAC

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942** **OP (CAT).No.23 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14-12-2018 IN OA 180/661/2017 & 180/679/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 JIJU K., S/O. NARAYANAN V.K., KUTTIPALAKKAL HOUSE, PANNICODE P.O., MUKKAM, KERALA - 673602. (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)** - **2 BRIJESH, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN P., PUTHUMANA HOUSE, SARADHAMANDIRAM, KOLATHARA P.O., CALICUT-673655. (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)** - **3 GIRISH K., S/O. R.V. KRISHNAN, T.C. 23/795, VYASA-178, VALIACHALAI STREET, TRIVANDRUM-695036. (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)** - **BY ADVS. SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN SRI.SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI-110001.** - **2 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING (CDAC) REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNE CAMPUS, GANESHKHIND, PUNE-411007.** - **3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING (CDAC), VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.** ## **R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI.** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).45/2019, OP (CAT).62/2019, THE COURT ON 08-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -2- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942** **OP (CAT).No.45 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14-12-2018 IN OA 180/661/2017 & 180/679/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INIDA, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001.** - **2 CENTRE OF DEVELOPMET OF ADVANCED COMPUTING REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNE CAMPUS, GANESHKHIND PUNE-411007.** - **3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING (C-DAC) VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADV. SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 JIJU.K. S/O.NARAYANAN.V.K., KUTTIPALAKKAL HOUSE, PANNICODE.P.O., MUKKAM, KERALA-673602(WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER C-DAC. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).** - **2 BRIJESH P S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN.P, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, SARADHAMANDIRAM, KOLATHARA .P.O.CALICUT-673655 (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER-C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).** - **3 GIRISH.K.** - **S/O.R.V.KRISHNAN, TC 23/795 VYASA-178, VALIACHALAI STREET, TRIVANDRUM-695036 (WORKING AS PRINCIPAL ENGINEER C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAURAM).** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).23/2019, OP (CAT).62/2019, THE COURT ON 08-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -3- # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.** # **TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942** **OP (CAT).No.62 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 14-12-2018 IN OA 661/2017 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001.** - **2 CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF PUNE CAMPUS, GANESHKHIND PUNE - 411 007** - **3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADVANCED COMPUTING (CDAC), VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **SENTHILKUMAR.K.B,** **S/O BALAKRISHNAN N, THOPPIL CRA-G 29, CHARACHIRA, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003, WORKING AS SENIOR ENGINEER, C-DAC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUKUMAR NAINAN OOMMEN R1 BY ADV. SRI.SHERRY SAMUEL OOMMEN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-08-2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).23/2019, OP (CAT).45/2019, THE COURT ON 08-09-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -4- ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 8[th] day of September, 2020 ## Gopinath, J: These original petitions arise out of the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. Nos.661/2017 and 679/2017. In this judgment, for the sake of clarity, the parties are referred to as they appear before the Tribunal and the documents referred to are as they are marked in OA No.661/2017. 2. The applicants before the Tribunal are Group-A officers holding scientific and technical posts in the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (hereinafter referred to as 'C-DAC'). The Government of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions had introduced a scheme known as 'Flexible Complementing Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'FCS') for scientists and other technical officers in Government Departments. On 10-09-2010, on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission the existing FCS scheme was modified and instructions regarding the implementation of this modified scheme (hereinafter referred to as the 'Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme' or 'MFCS') were issued. The office memorandum dated 10-09-2010 is on record as OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -5- Annexure-A6. A reference to Annexure-A6 will show that the intent and purpose of FCS was to ensure that time-bound promotions are granted to scientists in various scientific organizations to keep their morale high and to motivate them and also to stop the flight of talented scientists from Government organizations involved in research and scientific activities. The scheme essentially provided that after the completion of a minimum residency period (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRP') in a scale/grade the officer would be considered for promotion/up-gradation in the next higher grade/scale. Annexure-A6 provided that the assessment of an officer has to be completed in 3 stages. In the first stage, the officer concerned would prepare an annual work report for the period in question (self-appraisal). The annual work report and the annual performance rating of the officer concerned would then get reviewed by a Screening Committee which will include one external member. The report of the Screening Committee together with the connected records would be then placed before an Assessment Board with a majority of external members. Clause 2 (ii) of Annexure-I forming part of Annexure A- 6 O.M dated 10-09-2010 indicates the scope of review by the Assessment Board in the following terms: OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -6- “The assessment boards shall be constituted in each scientific Department/Ministry. The assessment board would have majority of the external members and possess expertise in the field. In case required, suitable amendment to the provisions for assessment boards in recruitment rules etc. may be considered to bring the composition of assessment boards in tune with these instructions. The assessment board would have characteristic of independent peer group for the assessment of the scientific content of the work. The assessment board shall document specifically through one page summary, the specific content of the work done justifying the merit for consideration under FCS.” The policy introduced in respect of scientific officers of the Government of India was later extended to organizations under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology through Annexure-A7 dated 19-09-2016. The C-DAC is an organization under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The C-DAC, therefore, adopted the instructions issued on 19-09-2016 and issued Annexure-A8 on 07-11-2016. A reading of Annexures-A7 & A8 indicate that the principles for assessment of scientific officers of the Government of India contained in Annexure A-6 would be applicable in the C-DAC as well. Annexures-A7 and A8 also indicate that the promotion/upgradation policy would be implemented in the C- OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -7- DAC with retrospective effect from 01-01-2011. 3. The case of the applicants in both the original applications before the Tribunal were taken up for consideration under MFCS. On the assessment of their annual work reports etc for the relevant MRP, the Screening Committee gave them a substantially good report. The external committee recommended their promotion only at MRP+1 meaning thereby that they would be considered for promotion/upgradation in the next higher grade under FCS not at the end of the minimum residency period required for promotion/upgradation under the FCS but, only on the completion of one year after the minimum residency period. In other words, if the minimum residency period prescribed for a particular up-gradation was 4 years, they would get promoted or placed in the higher grade only at the expiry of 5 years. It may be noticed herein that so far as the applicant in OA No.661/2017 is concerned he became eligible for the first up-gradation in 2012 and the second up-gradation in 2016 (up-gradation from Scientist-C to Scientist-D and Scientist-D to Scientist-E). The effect of the finding of the External Committee that he was entitled to be promoted only at MRP +1 resulted in his first upgradation being delayed for one year beyond 2012 and consequently pushing his right to be considered for the second OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -8- up-gradation also by a period of one year. In so far as the applicants in OA No.669/2017 are concerned they obtained their first up-gradation under FCS in 2011 and were concerned with the second up-gradation to which they were eligible to be considered on completion of 4 years after their promotions in 2011, i.e. in 2015. They were also recommended for promotion/up-gradation only at MRP+1. The Tribunal having considered the matter found the C-DAC itself had admitted to several mistakes in the assessment of its officers for promotion/upgradation under FCS and had directed a review of the recommendations made by the External Committee in respect of the applicants in both the cases before the Tribunal (Annexure A-1 dated 31-07-2017). 4. The applicants in OA No.679/2017 have filed OP (CAT) No.23/2019 praying essentially that the direction of the Tribunal to conduct review must be set aside and further that a direction must be issued to grant them promotion at MRP+0 instead of MRP+1 which, was recommended by the Assessment Board, principally because those with lower gradings than themselves have been granted promotion/up-gradation at MRP+0. The Union of India and the C-DAC have filed OP (CAT) Nos.45/2019 & 62/2019 challenging the order of the Central Administrative OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -9- Tribunal to the extent it directs a review of the promotion/upgradation under MFCS, in so far as the applicants were concerned. 5. We have heard the submissions of Mr.Sukumar Nainan Oommen, learned counsel who appeared for the applicants before the Tribunal and the arguments of Sri. P. Vijayakumar, the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India and the C-DAC. The learned counsel for the applicants before the Tribunal would refer to various documents placed before the Tribunal to establish that the assessment of the applicants before the Tribunal was done in a completely illegal manner. He would point out that officers of lesser comparative merit had been granted promotion/up-gradation at MRP+0 while persons like the applicants who were rated substantially higher were recommended for promotion/up-gradation only at MRP+1. He would submit, with reference to the office memorandum produced as Annexure-A1 that the C-DAC itself had admitted anomalies in the method of assessment and would specifically refer to the finding in that document that the External Committee had ignored the annual work report etc of the officers concerned. In particular, he referred to the following statement in Annexure-A1. OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -10- "While assessing the scientific content of the work done by the officers, the Interview Boards did not give due weightage to AWR ratings and juniors with lower gradings were granted promotion on a date earlier than that of the senior, thereby creating imbalances in the hierarchy." He would point out that even in the review proposed in terms of the Annexure A-1 office memorandum dated 31-07-2017 did not contemplate grant of promotion from an earlier date to those recommended for promotion at MRP+1 as is clear from the statements in Office Memorandum 13/7 dated 08-08-2017 which, is produced as Annexure R1 (c) wherein in response to query No.1 as to whether an officer recommended for promotion at MRP+1 after the first assessment would be considered with MRP+0 in the review contemplated by Annexure-A1, it was stipulated that such promotion/upgradation will not be possible. He would also refer to the fact that under 4 (a) of Annexure-A1 it was decided that all promotions recommended and granted with prescribed MRP may be retained and as such given effect to. He would urge that even though the C-DAC itself had recognised the fact that there were severe discrepancies in the matter of the final assessment by the External Committee, the decision to retain the recommendations made was illegal and is liable to be set aside. He would also point out that the direction given by the OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -11- Tribunal to conduct fresh review would not redress the grievances of the applicants as several persons who were graded as having lesser merit in terms of their Annual Work Report (AWR)/ Annual Performance Ratings (APR) etc were already recommended for promotion/up-gradation at MRP+0. The learned Counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following judgments to buttress his contentions:- - (i) C&AG v. K.S Jagannathan; AIR 1987 SC 537; - (ii) S.G Jaisinghani v. Union of India; AIR 1967 SC 1427; - (iii) Srilekha Vidyarthi & ors v. State of U.P & ors; (1991) 1 SCC 212; - (iv) Union of India v. Atul Sukhla; (2014) 10 SCC 432; (v) Ajay Hasia & ors v. Khalid Mujib Sehravadi & ors; AIR 1981 SC 487; (vi) DG, ICAR & ors v. D.Sundara Raju; (2011) 6 SCC 605; & (vii) Bishnu Biswas & ors v. Union of India; (2014) 5 SCC 774. 6. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, would contend that the very scheme of FCS was to promote scientific development and to reward scientific achievement. He would state that the promotions/upgradations under FCS are in addition to the normal career progression schemes in place for Central Government employees and was intended only to reward scientific developments and achievements. He would contend that no person had a right to say that he/she must be given promotion immediately after OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -12- completion of the prescribed minimum period of residency. He would state that the completion of the minimum period of residency would only result in an officer becoming eligible to be considered for promotion/up-gradation in the next higher grade and whatever be the assessment in respect of the officer by the screening committee, the External Committee had to decide on an evaluation of various parameters as to whether the officer concerned should be promoted/placed in the next higher scale/grade immediately on completion of minimum residency period or only on completion of a further period in the lower scale. He would therefore contend that the arguments raised by learned counsel for the applicants regarding their AWR/APR etc. cannot be of any avail to the applicants because the assessments were not merely based on such inputs but also with reference to overall assessment by the External Screening Committee. 7. We have considered the contentions raised by both sides. As already noticed MFCS is not an automatic promotion/up-gradation in the next higher scale/grade on completion of the minimum residency period. It involves an assessment of the contributions made by the officer concerned to scientific research and other scientific achievements/ developments and involves a thorough evaluation of such work. OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -13- Annexure-A1 shows that persons whose AWR/APR reviews suggested better merit were recommended for promotion/upgradation at MRP+1 while those with lesser ratings were recommended for promotion/up-gradation at MRP+0. The learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out certain specific instances where despite the AWR/APR review scores being less than that of the applicants before the Tribunal certain other officers have been graded as 'Outstanding' and recommended for promotion/up-gradation at MRP+0 while the applicants have been graded as 'Excellent' and recommended for promotion/upgradation at MRP+1. This court cannot set out the parameters based on which such evaluation should be made. However, it is important that the evaluation must be objective and not subjective. The evaluation cannot be based on the whims and fancies of the External Screening Committee and must reflect the application of uniform standards. The very purpose of having an External Committee was to ensure absolute objectivity in the evaluation of scientific work. From a reading of Annexure-A1, it is difficult for us to find that there has been such an objective and uniform assessment of all the officers in question. As observed and directed by the Tribunal a proper review must be carried out to determine whether the applicants before the OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -14- Tribunal were entitled to promotion/up-gradation on a date earlier than MRP+1. Such review must necessarily take into account promotions/upgradations granted to other officers with lesser reported merit based on their AWR/APR and recommendations of the Screening Committee. We are therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in directing a review of the promotions/upgradations reccomended in the case of the applicants. We feel that the directions/observations made in paragraph 24 & 25 of the impugned order of the Tribunal are well-founded. In the view that we have taken of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the applicants. 8. We notice that pursuant to the order dated 05-02-2019 of this Court in O.P (CAT) No. 23 of 2019 the petitioners therein were provisionally interviewed for considering them for the next promotion/upgradation in 2019 itself (a consideration which they would have received only if the earlier promotion/upgradation was granted at MRP+0) and the results thereof have been placed before this Court in a sealed cover, as directed. We have examined those records. In the view that we have taken of the matter, the question as to whether the petitioners in O.P (CAT) No. 23 of 2019 would be entitled to consideration in 2019 will OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -15- itself depend on the result of the review to be undertaken, as directed by the Tribunal. We therefore direct that following the review as directed by the Tribunal, if the petitioners in O.P (CAT) 23 of 2019 are found entitled to the earlier promotion/ upgradation at MRP+0, (in the year 2015) then the results of their consideration under MFCS in the year 2019, under the order dated 05-02-2019 of this Court shall also be released/published. 9. In the light of our findings, we dismiss these petitions upholding the order issued by the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **JUDGE** **Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE** AMG OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -16- ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 23/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM 12/17 DATED 31/07/2017 OF CDAC (NO.CORP.DG2723) ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. HR/101/2016 DATED 19/04/2017 OF CDAC ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE DATE OF PROMOTION OF THE APPLICANT SHOWN THEREIN (S. NOS.10, 19 AND 21 AMONG GRADE BASED CONTRACT STAFF).** |**ANNEXURE A15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. HR/101/2016 DATED**<br>**19/04/2017 OF CDAC ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN**<br>**RESPECT OF THE DATE OF PROMOTION OF THE**<br>**APPLICANT SHOWN THEREIN (S. NOS.10, 19 AND 21**<br>**AMONG GRADE BASED CONTRACT STAFF).**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF EMAIL LETTER DATED 04/08/2017 OF**| ||**MOHAMMED T.P. HEAD HR, WITH 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.13/17 DATED**| ||**08/08/2016 (NO. CORP.DG 2731) ISSUED BY THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT OF FIRST APPLICANT TO**| ||**THE POST OF STAFF SCIENTIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF PROMOTION OF APPLICANTS**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDERS OF EXTENSION OF 1ST**| ||**APPLICANT' CONTRACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A7**|**TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE RATINGS**| ||**FROM 2008 TO 2018 AND RATING IN REVIEW IN**| ||**OCTOBER 2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A8**|**TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL WORK REPORTS OF APPLICANTS**| |**(8A, 8B AND 8C)**|**FROM 2011 TO 2016.**| |**ANNEXURE A9**|**TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 10/09/2010 ISSUED BY DOPT.**| |**ANNEXURE A10**|**TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 19/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**1ST RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 07/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE**| ||**2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A12**|**TRUE COPY OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**12/01/2016.**| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SCREENING**| |**(13A, 13B AND**|**COMMITTEE-INTERNAL PEER GROUP REVIEW REPORT FOR**| OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -17- |**13C)**|**THE PERIOD 2008 TO 2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD**| |---|---| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE REVIEW HELD ON**| |**(14A, 14B AND**|**22/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**14C)**|| |**ANNEXURE A16**|**TRUE COPY OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**24/02/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF OA 180/679/2017 FILED BEFORE**| ||**HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P1 A**|**TRUE COPY OF MA NO. 800/2017 IN OA 679/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1 B**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE CAT DATED**| ||**16/08/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1 C**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE CAT DATED**| ||**25/09/2017.**| |**EXHIBIT P1 D**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT DATED 10/01/2018**| ||**FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS WITH**| ||**ACCOMPANYING R1(A).**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE CAT DATED**| ||**14/12/2018.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF OM 02/19 DATED 04/01/2019 ISSUED BY**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -18- ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 45/2019** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM 12/17 DATED 31/07/2017 OF CDAC (NO.CORP.DG 2723) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. HR/101/2016 DATED 19/04/2017 OF CDAC ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE DATE OF PROMOTION OF THE APPLICANT SHOWN THEREIN (S. NOS.10, 19 AND 21 AMONG GRADE BASED CONTRACT STAFF).** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL LETTER DATED 04/08/2017 OF MOHAMMED T.P. HEAD HR, WITH 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.13/17 DATED 08/08/2016 (NO. CORP.DG 2731) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT OF FIRST APPLICANT TO THE POST OF STAFF SCIENTIST ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF PROMOTION OF APPLICANTS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF ORDERS OF EXTENSION OF 1ST APPLICANT'S CONTRACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF PERFORMANCE RATINGS FROM 2008 TO 2018 AND RATING IN REVIEW IN OCTOBER 2012.** - **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL WORK REPORTS OF APPLICANTS FROM 2011 TO 2016.** - **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 19/09/2010 ISSUED BY DOPT. ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 10/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF OM DATED 07/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATION DATED 12/01/2017.** - **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SCREENING COMMITTEE-INTERNAL PEER GROUP REVIEW REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 2008 TO 2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** OP (CAT) Nos.23, 45 & 62/2019 -19- - **ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE REVIEW HELD ON 22/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24/04/2017.** - **ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 20/12/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.180/679/2017 AND 180/661/2017 DATED 14/12/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN O.A.NO.180/679/2016 DATED NIL.01.2018, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.NO.661/2017 AND 679/2017 DATED 14.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**