LPA-1579-2015 207 IN THE NATIONAL B GURGAON & MAHENDER K CORAM: HO HO Present: M M for Dr SANJEEV PR 1. The appe Single Ju and direc been app of Rs.660 a period 2. Brief fac that an Centre (f India for research and disea 015 (O&M) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH Date of AL BRAIN RESEARCH CENTER, ON & ANR. Vs. DER KUMAR SINGH & ORS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJ HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEE **** Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Veer Chauhan, Advoca for the appellants. Dr. Mahender Kumar Singh, respo **** V PRAKASH SHARMA, J. e appellants assail the order dated 27. ngle Judge whereby the Single Judge d directed the respondent No.1/writ p en appointed in the pay scale of Rs.15 Rs.6600/-, and further consequential a eriod of three months with interest @ ief facts which need to be noticed fo t an advertisement was issued by ntre (for short ‘NBRC’), Institute of B dia for conducting research in Neuros earch towards understanding brain st d disease. The post of Information Sci NJAB AND HARYANA AT ARH LPA-1579-2015 (O&M) Reserved on: 15.01.2025 ate of Pronouncement: 21.01.2025 , NH-8, MANESAR . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA te with dvocate , respondent No.1 in person. ed 27.08.2015 passed by the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition /writ petitioner to be treated to have Rs.15,600-39100 with the grade pay ntial arrears to be paid to him within est @ 8% per annum. ced for adjudication of this case are d by the National Brain Research te of Biotechnology, Government of Neuroscience and undertaking basic rain structure and function in health on Scientist was advertised with pay M) 2025 2025 s s rned tition have pay ithin e are arch nt of basic ealth pay MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 scale of R with 5 ye in any br System/N candidate organizin administ troublesh preferenc managem As per candidate their prof 3. The writ selected the pay s other all was state one year Committ been sel However scale of petitione data and 015 (O&M) ale of Rs.10000-15200 with essential q th 5 years experience in System/Netwo any branch of Science/Computer Scie stem/Net Working Administration. It ndidate having a proven background i ganizing information/data retrieval fr ministration, Local Area Network (L ubleshooting for LAN/WAN and netw eference, Structural Biology, analysis nagement and development, exposure per clause 5 of the general conditi ndidates may be considered for high profiles. e writ petitioner, who was an in-servi lected and was offered the post of Info pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with a er allowances vide their letter dated s stated to be on contract for 5 years e year from the date of joining. T mmittee were also conveyed which re en selected by the Selection Com wever, while 5 other persons were ale of Rs.15600-39100 with a grade titioner is concerned, it was stated th ta and performance of the candidate in ntial qualification of post graduation /Networking Administration, or Ph.D r Science with 4 years experience in ion. It was further desired to have a ound in concepts and applications of val from online systems, database rk (LAN), Server maintenance and d networking issued was to be given nalysis, experience in lab, website posure to Bio informatics application. onditions of the advertisement, the r higher/lower grade depending on service candidate, applied and was of Information Scientist in NBRC in with a grade pay of Rs.5400/- plus ted 23.04.2010. The appointment years with a probationary period of ing. The minutes of the Selection hich reflected that the petitioner had Committee held on 24.11.2009. were appointed in the revised pay grade pay of Rs.6600, so far as the ted that after going through the bio date in the interview, the Committee ation Ph.D ce in ve a ns of base and iven bsite ation. , the g on was C in plus ment d of ction r had 009. pay s the e bio ittee MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 recomme downgra of Rs.540 4. The petit challengi pay scale 5. Learned general c the candi their pro said cond pay scale his bioda found to 6. Learned proceedi the comp as Inform petitione of Rs.5 Technolo Program experien opinion t field of S 015 (O&M) ommended petitioner’s appointment wngrading above scale of pay to Rs. Rs.5400/-. e petitioner preferred the writ petition allenging the grant of lower grade pay y scale as to the other candidates. arned Senior counsel for the appel neral conditions of the advertisement candidates may be considered for hig ir profiles was one of the condition fo id condition of advertisement, the wri y scale of Rs.15600-39100 with a gra biodata and performance in the int und to be of the level where he should arned counsel for the appellants has f oceedings of the meeting of the Comm complaint about appointment of the r Information Scientist. The Committe titioner had served as Project Assistan Rs.5000/- in Bioinformatics Cen chnology, Chandigarh and thereafter w ogrammer and a Junior Informatio perience certificate was attached, an inion that the experience as Project As ld of System/Networking Administrat tment as Information Scientist by o Rs.15600-39100 with a grade pay etition after making a representation de pay to the petitioner in the same appellants has submitted that the ement provided under clause 5 that for higher/lower grade depending on ition for appointment. In view of the he writ petitioner was placed in the a grade pay of Rs.5400/-, based on he interview. Thus, his profile was hould be placed in the lower grade. s has further taken this Court to the Committee constituted to look into f the respondent No.1/writ petitioner mittee was of the opinion that the ssistant at consolidated emoluments s Centre, Institute of Microbial after worked as Computer Operator, rmation Scientist in NBRC. No ed, and therefore it submitted an ject Assistant was not in the required inistration whereas experience in the t by pay ation same t the that g on f the n the d on was o the into ioner t the ents obial rator, No d an uired n the MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 NBRC m experien as qualif report s reflects t in the low 7. It has b noticed t entitleme regular therefore appeal, a regulariz granting be set asi 8. Learned be allowe order to from the 9. Per con does not the sanc prescribe selection placed in 015 (O&M) RC may be considered as requisite perience with effect from joining in N qualifiable experience for the post o ort submitted by the Committee lects that Selection Committee had fo the lower grade. has been stated that this Court wh ticed that the appellants cannot be hea titlement of higher grade pay from th ular basis, and the stay order wa refore submits that the Division Be peal, allowed entitlement of higher ularization, and the order passed by anting higher grade pay from the date set aside. arned Senior counsel therefore submi allowed. He submits that as the relief der to the respondent No.1/writ petitio m the date of regular appointment, the contra, respondent No.1/writ petit es not have the power and authority t sanctioned post of Information S escribed for the post. Once the pet lection for the post of Information Sci ced in a lower pay scale to that of Info uisite experience, and therefore his g in NBRC can only be considered post of Information Scientist. This ittee dated 29.10.2014, therefore, had found his profile fit to place him rt while admitting the appeal had be heard to question the petitioner’s rom the date of his appointment on er was modified accordingly. He on Bench had, while admitting the igher grade pay from the date of sed by the learned Single Judge of e date of initial appointment ought to submits that the appeal deserves to relief has been granted by an interim petitioner granting him regular pay nt, the same may be made absolute. t petitioner submits that the NBRC ority to downgrade the pay scale of tion Scientist below the minimum he petitioner is found suitable for on Scientist, he could not have been of Information Scientist. The revised e his ered This , him had ner’s t on . He the te of e of ht to es to terim pay BRC le of mum for been d MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 pay scale pay of R on contra with the (for shor post by w maximum appointm further p candidate filled the therefore He departme of the of the selec was hold being co lower pa harm the Rules to prescribe the Sing “the pow 015 (O&M) y scale of Information Scientist was y of Rs.6600. While the petitioner’s a contractual basis, it was a regular app th the provisions contained under the r short ‘the Rules’) which provided fo st by way of appointing selected cand ximum period of 5 years, whereafter pointment on completion of 5 years rther provided as per clause 7 under ndidate who is selected for appointm led the post by direct recruitment. T refore supports the order passed by th He has further stated that he had partment and had raised several questi the officers in the department. Result selection process, one of the membe s holding a post lower than the pos ing conducted, deliberately and malafi er pay scale. The exercise was condu rm the petitioner. He submits that ther les to appoint on a post in a lower pa escribed for the post. He has also taken Single Bench to submit that the Si power of upgradation or downgrad t was Rs.15600-39100 with a grade ner’s appointment was shown to be lar appointment made in accordance er the NII Recruitment Rules, 1996 ided for filling up direct recruitment candidate on contract initially for a reafter he was to be offered regular years of contract service. It was under the Rules that a departmental pointment shall be deemed to have ent. The respondent No.1/petitioner by the learned Single Judge. e had been a whistle-blower in the questions relating to the functioning Resultantly, when he participated in embers of the Selection Body who e post for which the selection was malafidely placed the petitioner on a conducted with a deliberate intent to at there is no power available in the wer pay scale or grade pay than the o taken this Court to the judgment of the Single Judge has observed that grading of the existing sanctioned rade e ance 1996 ment for a gular was ental have ioner n the ning ed in who was on a nt to n the n the nt of that ed MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 core pos India”. 10. He also opinion o The said lowering ex-parte opportun taken int 11. The res interim Rs.6600/ further lo the same grade pa than his was regu the date pay of R years of incremen along wi incremen 12. We have 015 (O&M) posts vests with the Department of . e also submits that the appellants ha inion on the basis of an anonymous co e said opinion has been made as a ering down the pay scale of the petit parte opinion report has been g portunity of hearing to the petitioner en into consideration. he respondent No.1/writ petitioner h erim order passed by this Court .6600/- from the date of regulariza rther loss to him, as he being placed in same pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 ade pay of Rs.5400/- for 5 years whic n his salary treating him being a fres s regularized. The appellants treated date of regularization i.e. 26.04.2015 y of Rs.6600/- resulting in lowering ars of service were put to an end, rements has been lost, while the othe ng with him on contract basis have rements, and are much above him in t e have considered the submissions. t of Biotechnology, Government of ants have prepared a false ex-parte ous complaint prepared against him. as a basis to support the order of e petitioner. He alleges that the said een granted without giving any titioner, and the same ought not be ner has further submitted that the ourt protecting his grade pay of ularization has resulted in causing ced in the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in 39100 had earned increments in the s which resulted in his salary higher a fresh appointee from the date he eated him as a fresh appointee from 4.2015 and placed him in the grade ering down his salary. His entire 5 end, and the benefit of 5 years’ e other persons who were appointed s have continued to draw 5 years’ im in the pay scale. t of parte him. er of said any t be t the y of ng in n the igher te he from rade ire 5 ears’ inted ears’ MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 13. From th preferred qu pa Sc Pa sa Rs. Rs. aw Co cir be kin 14. The app the appo learned S and notic revised i (Revised find that grade pa Recruitm qu 015 (O&M) om the perusal of the record, we fi eferred by the petitioner in 2012, where “[a] call the record of the case [b] issue a writ in the natur quashing the action of the responden pay scale of the petitioner for the Scientist in the lower scale of Rs.15 Pay of Rs.5400 being contrar sanctioned/advertised for the highe Rs.10000-15000 (Corresponding r Rs.15600- 39100 with Grade Pay award arrears thereto with interest @ [c] or issue any other directi Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case in the inter [d] filing of certified copies be dispensed with; of [e] Advance notices upon kindly be dispensed with;” he appellants were directed to produce appointing authority to reduce the rned Single Judge examined the condi d noticed that the grade pay for the po ised in terms of the recommendations evised Pay) Rules, 2008 extended to d that there was no downgradation o e pay was available for the sai cruitment provisions of the Rules read “7.1 The candidates posse qualifications and experience as spe we find that the writ petition was wherein he had prayed as under: e case; ature of certiorari thereby ndents in down grading the r the post of Information s.15600-39100 with Grade trary to the post so igher pre-revised scale of g revised pay scale of Pay of Rs.6600/-) and to est @ 12% p.a.; rection which this Hon'ble in the peculiar facts and interest of justice. pies annexures may kindly on the respondents may roduce the Rules which empowered ce the grade pay of the post. The condition No.5 in the advertisement the post of Information Scientist was dations of the Central Civil Services ded to autonomous institutions. We tion of the post, nor any alternative he said post. In fact, the Direct read as under: ossessing the educational s specified in Schedules are was ered The ment t was vices . We ative irect MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 eli Ex as ma se As Au the his As ap In his fiv ap sh to hig the ex sc Co wi wh 15. From pe Selection of the sc five adv conjoint Rules wo 015 (O&M) eligible for direct recruitment and s Expert Selection Committee as specif 7.2 The selected candidate assuming the duties will be on co maximum period of five years. At th service the candidates performance Assessment Committee to be appoin Authority to decide if the candidate the four years service has been satisf his/her performance is found to b Assessment Committee, he/she wil appointment on completion of five y In case his/her performance is not fo his/her contract service will stand te five years term of the initial contract 7.3 In case a departmental ca appointment for the post through t shall be deemed to have been filled b 7.4 Direct recruits may be giv to be so recorded by the Expert higher initial start than the minimum they are appointed. However, such a exceed five advance Increments ove scale. Recommendations, if any, by Committee for grant of more than fi will be examined by the Governin which is the competent body to decid perusal of above, it is apparent tha lection Committee may grant higher the scale to a candidate in deserving e advance increments over the min njoint reading of clause 5 of the adver les would mean that Selection Comm nd shall be selected by the pecified in Schedule IV. idates, from the date of n contract initially for a At the end of four years of nce will be assessed by an pointed by the Appointing date's performance during atisfactory or otherwise. If to be satisfactory by the will be offered regular ive years contract service. ot found to be satisfactory, nd terminated at the end of ract appointment. al candidate is selected for gh this method, the same led by Direct Recruitment. e given, in deserving cases, pert Selection Committee, imum of the scale to which ch an initial start shall not s over the minimum of the y, by the Expert Selection an five advance increments rning Body of the N.I.I., ecide the same.” ent that as per clause 7.4, the Expert igher initial start than the minimum rving cases, which shall not exceed e minimum of the scale. Thus, a advertisement, and clause 7.4 of the Committee may grant a higher start xpert mum ceed us, a f the start MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 to any in Rules do post. Sin Rs.6600/ Rs.5400/ 16. The Sin received be avail position 17. Any per and allow the docu the core authority Biotechn power to 18. We also candidate Rules 7.2 services from the appointm regular b 015 (O&M) any individual than the minimum of les do not provide any power to low Since the grade pay for the pos .6600/-, the appointment of the wri .5400/- has to be treated as wrongful a he Single Judge has also noticed the eived under the RTI Act, 2005 which available with the Selection Comm sition that the NBRC has not downgra ny person working on a particular pos d allowances of that post. As observed documents placed before it, we affir ore posts in the NBRC vested with thority is on the basis of recomm otechnology, Government of India, w wer to upgrade or downgrade the sanc e also find from the position of th ndidate appointed by the method of les 7.2 and 7.3 would be posted on a rvices are mentioned as contractual. m the ordinary contractual appoint pointment on the post results in fina ular basis. um of the pay scale. However, the to lower down the grade pay of the he post of Information Scientist is e writ petitioner on grade pay of gful and unjustified. ed the documents placed before it which too reflects the power not to Committee, and it is an admitted wngraded the post. lar post is entitled to receive the pay served by the Single Judge based on e affirm that the authority to create with the Ministry of Finance. Such commendations of Department of dia, who would therefore have the e sanctioned core posts. of the Rules that a departmental od of direct recruitment in terms of d on a sanctioned post, although his ctual. Such appointment is distinct ppointments, since the method of in finally appointing the person on , the f the ist is y of re it ot to itted pay d on reate Such t of e the ental s of h his tinct d of n MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 19. The sche person, w for 5 yea notice th pay scale be abov regularly lower pro terms of par with selection we confi 20. The con report pr petitione ignored Judge. T petitione and its re for the p recomme selection 21. The rea prepared the expe 015 (O&M) he scheme of Rules reflects that the re rson, who is appointed as Information r 5 years. It is like placing a person on tice that after regular appointment, h y scale and increments. The petitioner above board during contractual pe ularly appointed. Thus, it cannot be er profile, nor any other person was s ms of Rule 7.4 of the Rules. Thus, the r with his other colleagues who have b lection. Distinguishing his case has b confirm with the view taken by the Si he contention of the learned counsel f ort prepared during the pendency of th titioner not to possess the sufficien ored, and the same has rightly been dge. The Committee which has exami titioner has not given any opportunity d its report has to be treated as a mer r the purpose of examining the appo ommendations of the Selection C lection in the year 2010. he reasons for offering appointment epared after a period of 4 years by for experience. It was not for the concer the record of the performance of the ation Scientist, would be examined on on probation for 5 years. We also ent, he continues to draw the same itioner’s services have been found to ual period, and he has been also not be said that he was having any was specially granted increments in us, the petitioner has to be treated at have been appointed under the same has been found to be arbitrary, and Single Judge. nsel for the appellants based on the cy of the writ petition mentioning the fficient experience deserves to be been ignored by the learned Single examined the experience of the writ rtunity of hearing to the petitioner, mere opinion, which is irrelevant appointment of the petitioner and tion Committee which made the tment on a lower grade cannot be by forming a Committee to examine concerned subsequent Committee to f the ined also same nd to also any ts in ed at same and n the g the o be ingle writ oner, vant and the t be mine ee to MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-1579-2015 state as Assistant Technolo The app petitione is found 22. Appeal i by the le Appeal i with the pay and a 23. Complia period of 24. Interim terms. 25. No costs 26. All pend 21.01.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether 2. Whether 015 (O&M) te as to whether the petitioner’s ex sistant in the Bioinformatics Cen chnology could be denied for counti e appellants themselves have confirm titioner on the post. In view thereto, th found to be wholly misconceived and w ppeal is found lacking in substance an the learned Single Judge does not w peal is accordingly dismissed. The th the order passed by the Single Jud y and allowances of the writ petitioner ompliance of the order of the Single riod of three months henceforth. terim orders passed by this Court st o costs. ll pending applications stand disposed (SANJE (ME ether speaking/reasoned? Ye ether reportable? Ye r’s experience acquired as Project s Centre, Institute of Microbial counting the 5 years of experience. confirmed the respondent No.1/writ reto, the contention of the appellants d and without basis. nce and on merits. The order passed not warrant any interference by us. he appellants shall now comply le Judge, and accordingly revise the itioner. Single Judge shall be done within a ourt stand disposed of in aforesaid posed of. ANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No oject obial ence. /writ lants ssed y us. mply e the hin a esaid MOHIT GOYAL 2025.01.22 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document