Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Const. (Exe.) Raj Yadav vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 9 January, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application Nos.4598 of 2011 This the 9th day of January, 2012 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) Const. (Exe.) Raj Yadav Belt No.486/NE, PIS No.28951000 S/o Jaipal Singh, R/o Village & PO Mohanna, Distt. Bulandshahar (UP) presently posted as PS Mandir Marg, New Delhi. Applicant ( By Shri Saurabh Ahuja, Advocate ) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police Establishment, Delhi through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, IP Estates, MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Raj Yadav, a constable in Delhi Police, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking full 5 marks earmarked for the ACRs that were under consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constable through limited departmental competitive examination. He seeks grant of 5 marks for the ACRs, and thereafter, if he is to obtain cut-off marks for inclusion of his name in the Promotion List-A 2010, to direct the respondents to promote him to the post of Head Constable from the date when his batch-mates were promoted, with all consequential benefits. There is relief as regards directing the respondents to give the applicant 3 extra marks for the reason that three questions were out of syllabus, but no arguments in that regard have been raised during the course of arguments.
2. Brief facts of the case as may be relevant and as have been projected in the Application, reveal that the applicant participated in the selection process for Promotion List-A under rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980. The cut-off marks for the general category, to which the applicant belongs, were fixed by the respondents as 120.5. The applicant lost selection by 2 marks, as he secured 118.5 marks. He was allotted 2.5 marks out of 5 for ACRs in the relevant preceding five years. It is made out from the pleadings that 5 marks were to be given to the applicant after all his ACRs under considerations were to be outstanding. Inasmuch as, the same were below outstanding, the primary and in fact the only case of the applicant is that the same ought to have been communicated to him, and that if such ACRs were to be communicated to the applicant, he had a chance to make representation, and further chance for their upgradation to outstanding, and in that case he would have secured the cut-off marks fixed for general category candidates for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The sole reliance for the plea, as mentioned above, as raised during the course of arguments by Shri Saurabh Ahuja, learned counsel representing the applicant, is that below benchmark ACRs of an employee have to be communicated to him, as ruled by a Full Bench of five Honble Members of this Tribunal in OA No.24/2007 decided on 7.5.2008 in the matter of Ashok Kumar Aneja v Union of India, as also by the Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v Union of India & Others [2008 (7) SCALE 403]. Pertinent reliance of the learned counsel is upon para 13 of the judgment of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt, which has been quoted in para 4.8 of the OA.
3. We have heard the learned counsel representing the applicant and with his assistance examined the records of the case. In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit whatsoever in the only contention of the learned counsel, as noted above. It may be recalled that the judgment by the Full Bench of this Tribunal and that of the Honble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt (supra) came after the instructions came to be issued in the year 2002 that for promotion to the higher echelons of service, there would be the benchmark of very good in respect of all five ACRs, and even if four out of five ACRs are very good and only one may be good, there would be no question to promote an employee to the higher post. Such were not the instructions earlier in point of time, and ACRs which may be good were not required to be communicated. It was the combination of all the reports that would entitle an employee for promotion to a higher post. It is the new instructions by which the ACRs which may be good are to be now considered below benchmark, and the case law as has developed is that such below benchmark ACRs have to be communicated. The observations of the Apex Court as relied upon by the counsel have to be read in reference and context of the controversy that was in issue. In the present case, promotion of a Constable to the post of Head Constable through limited departmental competitive examination is dependent upon written examination and other attributes, like length of service, commendations, courses, punishments and ACRs. It is a combined total of the marks on all heads as mentioned above that would entitle an employee for promotion. No doubt, a good ACR as compared to very good or outstanding would give lesser chances to an employee for promotion, as also that the ACRs of the applicants which may not be outstanding would also give lesser chance to him for promotion, but there would be no absolute bar for promotion of the applicant only because his ACRs are not outstanding and are either very good or good. As mentioned above, even if one ACR of an employee is to be below benchmark, like only good, whereas the other four may be outstanding, he would lose in the race for promotion to the next higher post. The ACRs of the applicant herein have been evaluated and added into his marks. The judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal and that of the Apex Court would not strictly apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. We may reiterate that non-communication of below benchmark ACRs and the consequences thereof are direct outcome of the instructions of the year 2002. The entire case law, including three Full Bench judgments of this Tribunal and scores of judgments of the Honble High Court and the Honble Supreme Court earlier to the instructions aforesaid, would not necessarily entail communication of reports which may be good only. Further, in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that no interference is required, as surely if the course as asked for by the applicant is to be adopted, it may have to be done in case of all the candidates, which may result in complete change of the result, and whereas some candidates may come in, others may have to go out. Present does not appear to be a case which may need interference by this Tribunal.
4. Finding no merit in this Original Application, we dismiss the same in limine.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/