Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 10 November, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3528/2019
SANJAY GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in Person
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi and Mr.
Madhav Bajaj, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
ORDER
% 10.11.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the, 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 3185/2015, titled Sanjay Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., by which the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the said O.A. filed by the petitioner herein, holding as under:
"12. The very fact that the applicant was promoted in the next DSC held in 2016 discloses that the respondents acted in an objective manner. The entire episode discloses that the applicant did not avail the opportunity of making a representation to upgrade the ACR for the year 2007-08. Even the possibility of the Competent Authority upgrading the ACR for that year was lost on account of the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 21:09:34 applicant being reluctant to seek the relief in that behalf.
13. We do not find any merit in both the OAs, and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
2. The petitioner had preferred the aforesaid O.A., inter alia, assailing the decision of the Departmental Screening Committee (DSC), which convened on 05.06.2014 and found him unsuitable for grant of the Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) on the ground that he had not met the prescribed benchmark in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2007-08.
3. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that the said ACR was communicated to him only on 19.06.2014, that is, post the meeting of the DSC, and therefore, could not have been taken into consideration by the DSC.
4. He further submits that the mere fact that the ACR for the year 2007-08 was not challenged by him, would not disentitle the petitioner from maintaining his prayer for holding a review DSC. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, (2023) 19 SCC 472, and the Order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8555 of 2019, titled Lalit C. Joshi v. Bank of Baroda & Ors.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents prays for time to make her submissions in response to the aforesaid.
6. At her request, list on 14th November, 2025, in the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 21:09:34 'Supplementary List'.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J NOVEMBER 10, 2025/prg/RM/hs This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/11/2025 at 21:09:34