Complicated Selection procedure for Members of CBDT – BOARD out of CAT
All these days nobody really knew how Members to the two premier Revenue Boards were appointed. This came to light only recently when a Chief Commissioner grade officer who missed the bus to the Board challenged the application of the selection process as approved by no less an Authority than the Prime Minister of India.
The basis of selection is the last ten available annual confidential reports of the officer. 10 points are awarded for 'Outstanding', 8 points for "Very Good', 5 points for 'Good' and zero points for other gradings below 'Good' in the ACRs . When an officer gets different gradings from the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities, an average is taken so that adequate weightage is given to the difference in gradings given by these authorities. This grading in a year is then weighted to the number of months covered in the report ... The points weighted by the number of months in each year are added up for ten years and the grand total is divided by the total number of months for which the ACRs pertain and thus, the weighted average point for an officer is arrived at.
The above procedure has been worked out having regard to various imponderables in the recording of ACRs . The weighted average principle eliminates the scope for any deviation or discretion by assigning different weightages when an ACR relates to a fraction of a year as compared to another for the whole year. This is the only way to compare/differentiate one officer who has say, very good grading for 12 months from another officer who has a very good grading for 9 months and an outstanding for the remaining 3 months in a year. If the weighted average is not taken, an officer who has say, an outstanding for just 3 months in a year (with no report for the remaining 9 months) will get an undue advantage. Similarly, an officer who has only a good grading for just 3 months of a year (with no report for the remaining months) will be severely disadvantaged. The only way such instances can be taken care of is by weighing the grading to the number of months to which it relates. This is what is being done.
The Petitioner before CAT, Narinder Singh who would have been Chairman of CBDT, if these calculations were done correctly has won a major battle with the CAT directing that these calculations be redone and Mr. Singh be appointed as Member and Chairman if he is eligible. Mr. Singh has become a Member subsequently.
The remarkable feature in this case is the remarkable research done by the petitioner to fight his case. He has not only produced details about his postings and leaves but those of 16 other officers. Even the Tribunal observed that Respondent was caught off-guard by the meticulous research done by the Applicant.
Now the CAT has asked for a fresh selection by the Committee of Secretaries and if Mr. Singh is eligible to consider him for the post of Member, CBDT and consequently or the post of Chairman, CBDT.
Now the Government is in a fix. Will it revert the present Chairman and appoint Singh as Chairman? Or will it appeal to the High Court? But then, what is the question of law? This was a question of simple Arithmetic.
Interesting days ahead. See a detailed analysis in our CobWeb.