Sri. P. Bala Murali Krishna Vs the Deputy Secretary

SRI. P. BALA MURALI KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O SRI P. RAMA KRISHNAIAH, RETIRED SCIENTIST/ENGINEER-SE, ISTRAC/ISRO 8^TH MAIN, CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 037.

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI STANLY SAM, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI 110001

¶18

THE SECRETARY, DOS/ ISRO, CHAIRMAN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (HEAD QUARTERS), ANTHRIKSHA BHAVAN,

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶23

THE JOINT SECRETARY, DOS MEMBER (PERSONNEL) GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (HEAD QUARTERS), ANTHRIKSHA BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶24

THE DIRECTOR, PP AND PM, ISRO, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, (HEADQUARTERS), ANTHRIKSHA BHAVAN, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560 094.

¶25

THE DIRECTOR, ISTRAC GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, PLOT No.12 AND 13, 3^RD MAIN,

¶26

2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶27

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SPOA-ISTRAC GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, PLOT No. 12 AND 13, 3^RD MAIN,

¶28

2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU 560058.

¶29

HEAD P AND GA, ISTRAC GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DEPARTMENT OF SPACE INDIAN SPACE RESEARCH ORGANIZATION, PLOT No.12 AND 13, 3^RD MAIN,

¶30

2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU 560 058.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

SRI JAYAKUMAR RAMANATHAN, SCIENTIST/ENGINEER-SF ISTRAC/ISRO, PLOT No.12 AND 13, 3^RD MAIN, 2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058.

¶34

SRI AMUDHAVEL, SCIENTIST/ENGINEER, U R RAO, SATELLITE CENTRE (URSC) - ISRO, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, VIMANAPURA POST BENGALURU 560 017.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1 TO R7)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ANNEXURE-M DATED 01.01.2015 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF 7^TH RESPONDENT OFFICE ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND)

¶42

Heard Sri Stanley Sam, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri B. Pramod, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

¶43

This writ petition is filed by the applicant in O.A. No.170/001688/2015, impugning the order dated 20.08.2018

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶47

The petitioner filed an application before the Tribunal challenging the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, ‘DPC’), wherein the petitioner was not recommended for promotion, and also seeking a direction to consider the representation dated 01.03.2014. The Tribunal, by order dated 20.08.2018, rejected the application holding that the expert committee had not recommended the petitioner for promotion and that, in the next DPC held after six months, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee and remained absent for four months. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the application.

¶48

3.1 The order of rejection passed by the Tribunal was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.53882/2018, which came to be withdrawn on 04.03.2022 with liberty to seek review of the impugned order. Pursuant thereto, Review Application No.170/00006/2022 was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 13.02.2023, rejected the review petition holding that no error apparent on the face of the record

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

was demonstrated. Now, the present writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 20.08.2018.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation was made on 01.03.2014, but the same has not been considered by the authorities. It is contended that the decision of the Committee holding that the petitioner is not fit for promotion is incorrect. It is further submitted that when a subsequent DPC was conducted, there was no necessity to call the petitioner for interview and, therefore, his absence cannot be a ground to deny promotion.

¶53

Sri B. Pramod, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner was granted promotion as and when he was found suitable and as recommended by the DPC. It is submitted that when the case of the petitioner was not recommended for promotion by the DPC in the meeting conducted on 01.01.2015, the petitioner’s case was considered again and an intimation was issued to him to participate in the DPC. It is further submitted that the petitioner, however, communicated by letter dated 07.09.2016, received on 20.10.2016, that he did not intend to appear for

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the DPC review. It is therefore contended that, in view of the petitioner’s absence, his suitability for promotion could not be considered. It is submitted that the Tribunal, having considered the above aspects, has rightly rejected the application. It is further submitted that, in the meantime, the petitioner has retired from service in the year 2018 on attaining the age of superannuation and, therefore, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the application.

¶57

Having considered the submissions made by

¶58

learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition papers, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. The petitioner has been granted promotion as and when the DPC has recommended him. However, it is noticed that in the DPC conducted on 01.01.2015, after considering the case of the petitioner, the DPC did not recommend him for promotion. The said decision was the subject matter before the Tribunal in the application filed in the year 2015. However, the petitioner’s case was again considered for promotion by the

¶59

DPC conducted in the year 2016. As per the letter dated 07.09.2016, received by the respondent authorities on

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:14068-DB WP No. 18986 of 2024

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

20.10.2016, the petitioner communicated that he was not intending to appear for the DPC review and returned the blank APAR along with the said letter. The Tribunal, having considered the above aspects, rejected the application.

¶64

The petitioner, having refused to participate in the DPC review, cannot now raise an allegation or grievance of non-consideration. The non-consideration remains attributable to the fault of the petitioner himself in not participating in the review meeting. Moreover, the order in the original application rejecting the claim was the subject matter before this Court in W.P. No.53882/2018. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 04.03.2022 with liberty to file a review petition. Accordingly, a review petition was filed and the Tribunal, after an extensive examination of the grounds raised, held that no ground was made out to review the earlier order.

¶65

Even upon consideration of the present petition, we are of the view that once the petitioner refused to attend the review meeting, he cannot have any grievance regarding nonconsideration for promotion. It is also to be noted that the prayer made cannot be entertained at this length of time,

¶66