CAT comes to the aid of ISRO scientist

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM:  The Central Administrative Tribunal has come to the aid of an Indian Space Research Organisation  scientist who was denied promotion allegedly because of a flawed assessment of his performance.   In a May 15 order, CAT Ernakulam Bench had ordered ISRO to re-examine the performance of Saji K Sam, engineer (SF) with the ISRO Inertial Systems Unit (IISU), Vattiyoorkavu, and consider him for promotion to the grade of scientist/engineer (Selection Grade) for the year 2009. Sam’s troubles began after he was rated ‘average’ in his annual confidential report (ACR) for 2007 and 2008.   Continuously from 1996 to 2005, he had been rated ‘very good.’ For the year inquestion too, his immediate superiors had given him a higher rating. He was not immediately aware of the cloud looming over his career since he was not informed of the downgrading.   Suspecting foul play after being dropped from promotions in 2009 and 2010, Saji took refuge under the Right to Information Act  and obtained a copy of his confidential report. He found that the then IISU director had downgraded him overlooking the assessments of ‘very good’ and ‘tending to be outstanding’ made by his immediate superiors, he said.   The Departmental Promotion Committee  should not have heeded  the IISU director’s assessment to deny him promotion.Also, keeping the decision from him was illegal and arbitrary, Sam said. “Even then, I did not approach CAT. I complained to ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan. I moved CAT only after waiting for eight months for a decision and still nothing was done,” he said.   ISRO told CAT that Sam was denied promotion on the basis of the confidential report which said his performance was not up to the mark. Since ‘average’ was not an adverse rating, he was not informed of it.   Sam has countered this saying that it was indeed ‘adverse’ since he was denied his promotions. The CAT concluded that the IISU director had downgraded Sam without showing any reason for doing so.Also, the reporting officer who directly supervises Sam’s work and the reviewing officer had given him higher ratings.  “The career of an officer is destroyed by below benchmark rating which is made under the cover of secrecy. A responsible and transparent system can never tolerate such deviant ways. The purpose of writing ACR is not to destroy the career of the officer reported upon. It is a tool to be used for development of human resources,” the CAT observed, ordering a review by the DPC within 60 days.