Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi vs Union Of India Through on 23 December, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench: New Delhi OA No. 2785/2013 Reserved on: 21.07.2014 Pronounced on: 23.12.2014 Honble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman Honble Dr. B. K. Sinha, Member (A) Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi R/o B/3, 211, Sec-6, Rohi, Delhi 110 085. Applicant (By Advocate: Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Govt. of India, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Joint Secretary (OL) Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri B.K. Berara) O R D E R By Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A):
The applicant in the instant OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is aggrieved by the act of the respondents in not promoting him to the post of Senior Translator on regular basis against the vacancies of 2008 and not placing him above one Shyam Kumar Singh appearing at serial no. 09 of promotion order dated 01.11.2010 (Annexure A-3).
2. The applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
(i) To declare the action of respondents in not promoting the applicant as Senior Translator on regular basis against the vacancy of 2008 as illegal and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 with directions to the respondents to hold review DPC and consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Translator from the date of juniors i.e. 2008 or against the vacancies of 2006-2008 by ignoring the below benchmark grading contained in the ACR for the period 2004-05 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(ii) To direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Translator as per decision of Honble Delhi High Court dated 14.07.2011 in WP(C) No.850/2000 and place him immediately below Sh. Chander Singh by promoting him as Senior Translator on regular basis against the vacancies for the year 2008.
(iii) To declare the action of respondents in treating the applicant unfit on the basis of Average Grading for the year 2004-05 as illegal and unjustified and issue appropriate directions for quashing/ignoring the said Average Grading and promoting the applicant as Senior Translator on regular basis & AD (OL) from the date of his juniors.
(iv) To pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) To allow the OA with cost.
3. The case of the applicant is that he joined the respondent Ministry as Junior Translator on 12.04.1990 on the basis of being declared successful in the Senior/Junior Translators (CSOLS) Exam, 1988 conducted by Staff Selection Commission and was promoted as Senior Translator on ad hoc basis vide order dated 10.11.2006. Subsequently, the respondents regularized the promotion of all identically placed persons, initially promoted along with the applicant on ad hoc basis, as Senior Translator vide order dated 01.11.2010. Upon enquiry, the applicant learnt that vide communication dated 30.11.2010, he had been awarded Average grading in the ACR for the year 2004-05 on account of which he could not be given regular promotion. The below benchmark grading had been communicated to him vide the above order for his representation (Annexure A-4). The case of the applicant is that the Average grading, being below benchmark, was required to be communicated to him before holding DPC for regular promotion. Admittedly, the DPC was held in the year 2006 and thereafter in 2010 for giving promotion to the post of Senior Translator, whereas the Average grading was communicated to the applicant, as seen above, vide letter dated 30.11.2010. This was contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India & Others [2009 (16) SCC 146] wherein it has been held that where the grading is treated as a bar to promotion and remains un-communicated before holding of DPC for promotion, ACRs containing the said below benchmark grading are required to be ignored. Moreover, the applicant has assailed such grading on the ground that he had no direct link with the reviewing officer and that he had been rewarded Rs.900/- as honorarium for outstanding work during the period of ACR under consideration. The applicant further contends that even no advisory memo had been issued to him regarding his work and conduct which is contrary to the OM dated 05.06.1981, which would reflect mala fide intention of the respondents. The applicant has relied upon the decisions in the cases of State of UP versus Yamuna Shankar Mishra & Another [1997 (4) SCC 7]; Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others [2008 (8) SCC 725]; and Union of India versus V.S. Arora & Others [WP(C) No.5042/2002 decided on 31.05.2012] stating that un-communicated below benchmark gradings are required to be ignored (page 15 of the paper book), hence the respondents action in not communicating the below benchmark gradings in ACR for the period under consideration would be bad in law.
4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit stating that the name of the applicant was considered for promotion against the panel year 2008. The applicant was informed vide letter dated 30.11.2010 that his grading in respect of the ACR for the year 2004-05 was Average against which he submitted representation on 13.12.2010. However, the reviewing authority did not agree for upgradation of the gradings given earlier. The respondents have also assailed the OA as being time barred. The main ground of the respondents is that the applicant was given promotion in terms of the Central Secretariat Official Language Recruitment Rules, 2006. However, the respondents are ready to refer the case of the applicant to review DPC to consider his suitability for promotion pertaining to the vacancy year 2008.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the applicant for promotion w.e.f. 2008 was rejected by the review DPC while he has been given regular promotion against the vacancies for the year 2010, vide order dated 26.12.2012 along with number of other candidates. The respondents further submit that the claim of the applicant is that he should be placed just below one Shyam Kumar Singh whereas he has not made others as party respondents in the instant proceedings. This OA is, therefore, fit to be dismissed on ground of non-joinder of necessary parties alone. Further, the respondents submit that the post in question is a selection post while the order of the Honble High Court in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vesus Amit Shankar & Others [WP(C) No.850/2000 decided on 14.07.2011] cited by the applicant relates to non-selection post where the DPC is only required to hold a person fit or unfit. The contention of the respondents that the post of Senior Translator is a selection post in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 2006 has been denied by the applicant in his rejoinder application filed by him. It has been stated that all that DPC was required to do was to hold that whether the applicant was fit or unfit. Once an individual is denied promotion on account of below benchmark grading, it becomes immaterial whether the method of promotion is by way of selection or non-selection. The suitability of an officer is always judged as per grading in the ACR. In case the post is selection post, the assumption is made on comparative basis which is not the fact here. Therefore, all such below benchmark gradings in the ACRs become non est and the ACR of the applicant for the period 2004-05 is required to be ignored.
6. The learned counsel for the respective parties made their oral submissions. The points noted above are those which have been submitted by the parties in the pleadings and no other points were made during the course of arguments.
7. We have patiently heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the pleadings as also other documents so submitted by them on the basis of which the short issue to be decided in the instant OA is that whether the ACR for the year 2004-05 is required to be ignored as being non est on account of the post being non-selection post?
8. As regards the issue of the OA being time barred, it is true that cause of action for filing the instant OA had arisen to the applicant on 01.11.2010 whereby the respondents regularized the promotion of similarly placed and juniors as Senior Translators by ignoring the claim of the applicant. However, the applicant has challenged the same in the instant OA filed on 12.08.2013. We take cognizance of the fact that the applicant has filed one Miscellaneous Application bearing MA No.2141/2013 seeking condonation of delay in filing the instant OA. We also take note of the submissions of the applicant that he had filed repeated representations in this regard. The applicant has relied upon the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & Anr. Versus Amit Shankar and Others (supra) holding that Junior Translator cannot be denied promotion to the post of Senior Translator merely on the basis of three Average gradings as the post of Senior Translator is not a selection post. On 01.11.2010, the applicant was denied promotion while his juniors were promoted in the year 2007-08. However, the applicant was promoted as Senior Translator on regular basis vide order dated 26.12.2012 from the year 2010 instead of 2008.
9. Since partial relief has been granted to the applicant in the form of his promotion vide order dated 26.12.2012, he has approached this Tribunal within one year from that date. We tend to agree with the applicant that he took recourse to the representations and since a partial relief has been granted, his case does not stand fully blocked by limitation. Moreover, we also take cognizance of the fact that since a point of law is involved, the case has been heard on merit. Now, at this stage to throw out the case on the ground of limitation would be against the interest of justice. Therefore, we decide to proceed with the case.
10. We start taking a look at the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (Groups A and B Posts) Rules, 2006. Schedule-III of the Rules, 2006 provides the method of recruitment, field of promotion, field of selection in respect of Senior Translator as under:-
Sl.
No. Name of post and scale of pay Whether selection or non-selection post Method of recruitment Field of promotion Field of selection for deputation 5 Grade-V (senior Translator) (Rs.6500-200-10500) Selection By promotion failing which by deputation Junior Translator having 3 years regular service in the grade, failing which Junior Translator having six years combined regular service in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.5000-8000 Officers under the Central Government (a)(i) holding analogous posts on regaulr basis in the parent cadre or department;
Or
(ii) having three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; and
(b) Possessing the educational qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Translator as laid down in Schedule VII.
6. Grade VI (Junior Translator) (Rs.5500-9000) Not applicable Direct Recruitment Note 1: Vacancies caused by the incumbent being away on deputation or long illness or study leave or under other circumstances for a duration of one year or more may be filled on deputation basis from officers of Central Government.
(a)(i) holding analogous posts on regular basis in the parent cadre or department;
Or
(ii)having three years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis in the scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000 or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; or
(iii) having six years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis in post in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-7000 or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; or
(iv) having ten years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on regular basis in posts in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000 or equivalent in the parent cadre or department; or
(b) possessing the educational qualifications and experience prescribed for direct recruitment as laid down in Schedule VII.
Not applicable Not applicable
11. It would appear from the above that the post in question is a selection post as indicated in column 3 of the Chart, whereas we notice that the post at serial no.6 i.e. Grade-VI Junior Translator in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 has not been deemed to be a selection grade as all the vacancies are required to be filled up by direct recruitment.
12. Now we come to the judgments cited by the applicant. The Honble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Versus Amit Shankar & Others (supra) has held as under:-
1. The respondent No.1 joined the service with the petitioner/Union of India in the Ministry of Defence as a Junior Translator on 14.08.1989 after he was selected on the basis of examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in the year 1987. The Respondent No.2 & 3 also joined the said service in the same post on the basis of same examination. In the Seniority List of the Junior Translator, respondent No.1 was placed at Sl. No.4, whereas the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were shown at Sl. Nos. 3 and 7 respectively. It is clear therefrom that the respondent No.1 was junior to the respondent No.2 and was senior to respondent No.3. Next promotion is to the post of Senior Translator. It is not in dispute that as per the Recruitment Rules, the said post of Senior Translator is a non-selection post and criteria for promotion prescribed is seniority-cum-fitness. Thus, the promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority and only an unfit person is to be excluded. In the instant case as the post itself has been declared in the recruitment rules as a selection post the facts of the case in Union of India versus Amit Shankar & Others (supra) are dissimilar and hence the order is not applicable to the present OA even though the designation happened to be the same. When the post is a non-selection post admittedly the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-fitness, whereas when it is a selection post, the situation is reverse and the criteria becomes merit-cum-seniority. Moreover, this judgement is rendered in respect of incident which occurred prior to 31.10.2006 when the present rules i.e. Central Secretariat Official Language (Groups A & B) were brought into effect. However, in the case of Union of India versus V.S. Arora (supra), this issue had been given a fuller treatment by the Honble High Court of Delhi wherein the Honble High Court was faced with the issue of the effect of non-communicated below benchmark ACRs of the employees. The question before the Honble High Court was that when the DPC meets, what does it has to do with regard to such un-communicated below benchmark ACRs? Does it ignore those ACRs or is it the requirement of law that the ACRs should be communicated to the concerned employee even at that stage and that they be given an opportunity to move representations against the same and after the representations are disposed of, the DPC should be re-convened to consider the case of the employees for promotion? The Honble High Court considered the cases of Dev Dutt versus Union of India (supra); Satya Narain Shukla versus Union of India [2006 (5) SCALE 627]; K.M. Mishra versus Central Bank of India and Others [2008 (9) SCC 120]; Union of India versus A.K. Goel [SLP (Civil) 15700/2009]; Union of India versus Uttam Chand Nahta and Others [SLP(Civil) No.29515/2010] and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India and Others (supra). In Union of India versus Krishna Mohan Dixit [WP(C) No. 6013/2010 and other connected matters decided on 08.08.2010], the Honble High Court of Delhi had taken the view that below benchmark ACRs are not to be simply ignored but should be communicated and the employee concerned be given an opportunity of making representation against the same. Thereafter, the DPC should consider the case of such employee. On the other hand, the ratio laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Others (supra) provides that below benchmark ACRs not communicated to the employee cannot be considered while examining his case for promotion.
13. The case of the respondents in the instant OA is simple that the below benchmark ACRs were communicated to the applicant on 30.11.2010 and his representation was invited. However, the reviewing authority one P.K. Mishra declined to accept the representation for upgradation of the ACRs of the applicant and reiterated the gradings given by him earlier and did not recommend upgradation of the ACRs. Another DPC was held on 27.10.2010 and the case of the applicant for promotion for the panel year 2008 was considered by the DPC but he was not found fit. He was subsequently promoted for the vacancy year 2010 by the DPC vide order dated 26.12.2012.
14. We are swayed here by the decision in the case of Union of India versus V.S. Arora (supra) where this issue has been clarified. In para 24 of the judgment, the Honble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
24. Therefore, the position that emerges is that the decision in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) holds the field. Now, what is it that Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) decides? It has, in the first instance, while affirming Dev Dutt (supra), concluded that non-communication of an ACR is violative of the constitutional rights of a government servant/employee. In the second instance, it has stated that such below benchmark ACRs ought not to be taken into consideration while the question of promotion of a particular government servant is in contemplation. Further, in the same very paragraph of the judgment, the Honble High Court of Delhi has relied para 6.2.1 of the DOP&T OM dated 06.10.2000, which provides as under:-
6.2.1. Confidential Rolls are the basic inputs on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC. The evaluation of CRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. Hence
(a) The DPC should consider CRs for equal number of years in respect of all officers considered for promotion subject to (c) below.
(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the employees for promotion on the basis of their Service Records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/ Recruitment Rules. The preceding five years for the aforesaid purpose shall be decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP&T, O M. No. 22011/9/98-Estt. (D), dated 8-9-1998, which prescribe the Model Calendar for DPC read with OM of even number, dated 16-6-2000. (If more than one CR have been written for a particular year, all the CRs for the relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year.) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) Where one or more CRs have not been written for any reason during the relevant period, the DPC should consider the CRs of the years preceding the period in question and if in any case even these are not available, the DPC should take the CRs of the lower grade into account to complete the number of CRs required to be considered as per (b) above. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs should be taken into account.
xxx xxx xxx xxx The Honble High Court in the same case has further held as under:-
25. From the above, it is clear that the DPC should consider the confidential reports for equal number of years in respect of all the employees considered for promotion subject to (c) mentioned above. The latter sub-paragraph (c) makes it clear that when one or more confidential reports have not been written for any reason during the relevant period, the DPC should consider the CRs of the years preceding the period in question and if, in any case, even these are not available, the DPC should take the CRs of the lower grade into account to complete the number of CRs required to be considered as per sub-paragraph (b) above. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs should be taken into account. We are of the view that the same would apply in the case of non-communicated below benchmark ACRs. Such ACRs would be in the same position as those CRs which have not been written or which are not available for any reason. Thus, it is clear that below benchmark ACRs, which have not been communicated, cannot be considered by the DPC and the DPC is then to follow the same procedure as prescribed in paragraph 6.2.1 (c), as indicated above.
15. In the instant case also, the same ratio would apply as in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India (supra), which is never under dispute. As the factual matrix of the case would indicate, when the judgment in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) was pronounced, the Government of India revised the existing OM so as to implement the judgment in the afore case by issuing OM dated 13.04.2010. This OM took into account that prior to 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the ACRs were required to be communicated to the concerned employee for his representation, if any, to be considered by the competent authority. However, as per the judgment in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) even the below benchmark ACRs are to be communicated to the concerned employee and representation made against the same is to be considered. The relevant part of the OM dated 13.04.2010 states as follows:-
1The question of treating the grading in the ACR which is below the benchmark for next promotion has been considered in this Department and it has been decided that if an employee is to be considered for promotion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008-09 which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DES contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned employee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation, if any, within 15 days of such communication. It may be noted that only below benchmark ACR for the period relevant to promotion need be sent. There is no need to send below benchmark ACRs of other years.
2. As per existing instructions, representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR (previously known as ACR) should be examined by the competent authority in consultation, if necessary, with the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer, if any. While considering the representation, the competent authority decides the matter objectively in a quasi-judicial manner on the basis of material placed before it. This would imply that the competent authority shall take into account the contentions of the officer who has represented against the particular remarks/grading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing officer if they are still in service on the points raised in the representation vis-`-vis the remarks/gradings given by them in the APAR. The UPSC has informed this Department that the Commission has observed that while deciding such representations, the competent authorities sometimes do not take into account the views of Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they are still in service. The Commission has further observed that in a majority of such cases, the competent authority does not give specific reasons for upgrading the below benchmark ACR/APAR gradings at par with the benchmark for next promotion.
16. From the above, it is clear that non-communication of below benchmark ACR prior to 2008-09 is an infirmity. It is, however, curable by a subsequent communication with opportunity to the concerned employee to file his representation within fifteen days. The OM also directs as to how the representation is to be decided. In this case, it is to be decided objectively and the views of the reporting/reviewing officer, if they are still in service, are to be obtained. In the instant case, the remarks were communicated to the applicant vide order dated 30.11.2010. The accepting/reviewing officer one P.K. Mishra was also consulted. However, he had given his opinion that he was firm in his earlier gradings given to the applicant and had not upgraded his ACRs. This fact was also communicated to the applicant. The case of the applicant was put up before the DPC for consideration for the post of Senior Translator for the vacancy year of 2008 but he was not found fit to be promoted. However, the DPC considered his case for the vacancy year 2010 and he was promoted vide order dated 26.12.2012.
17. We have already taken note of the prayer of the applicant whereby he has sought quashing of the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 with a direction to the respondents to hold a review DPC and consider him for promotion to the post of Senior Translator against the vacancies of 2006-2008 by ignoring the below benchmark gradings contained in the ACR for the period 2004-05 with all consequential benefits including the arrears of pay. The entire argument of the applicant is based upon the decision in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India (supra). The applicant has also placed reliance on the decisions of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Union of India & Anr. Versus Amit Shankar & Others (supra) and Union of India versus V.S. Arora (supra).
18. The facts and issues involved in Union of India & Anr. Vesus Amit Shankar & Others (supra) are different from the facts and issues of the instant OA. The respondent no.1 in that case was admittedly senior to respondent nos.2 & 3. The case was contested on the issue that there were certain adverse remarks made in the confidential reports of respondent no.1 for the year 1991-92 whereby it was concluded that he was not fit for promotion. Respondent no.1, on the other hand, contended that these remarks stood expunged in 1993 and, therefore, could not have been considered. The Honble High Court of Delhi had held in that case that the post of Senior Translator was not a selection post and the DPC was not required to compare the merit of the candidates. The promotion to the said post was to be made on the basis of seniority and the candidate who is to be treated as unfit was to be discarded. The Honble High Court of Delhi has held as under:-
No doubt in the ACR for the year 1991-92, there were certain remarks to the effect that the respondent no.1 had been coming to the office late. However, the fact remains that he improved immediately thereafter shaking off this habit and became punctual in coming to the office. It was specifically recorded in his service book. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that this could no longer be held against him. For this reason, therefore, he could not be treated as unfit.
19. In the case of Union of India versus V.S. Arora (supra) the position that emerges is that the decision in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India (supra) was under challenge in Union of India versus A.K. Goel [SLP (Civil) 15700/2009] which, vide order dated 29.09.2010, stood referred to a Larger Bench. A similar reference was made in the case of Union of India v. Uttam Chand Nahta and Others [SLP(Civil) No. 29515/2010] by an order dated 29.11.2010 according to which the petitioners should await the decision of the larger bench of the Honble Supreme Court. This is not the issue in the instant case. In the instant case, the provisions of OM dated 13.04.2010 have already been given effect to. The representation of the applicant for upgradation of his ACRs has been rejected and communicated to the applicant. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was considered against the vacancy year of 2010 and he has been promoted to the post of Senior Translator vide order dated 26.12.2012. The plea of the applicant now is for consideration against the vacancies of 2006-2008.
20. We have taken into account the willingness indicated by the respondents in para 4.10 of their counter affidavit to refer the case of the applicant to a review DPC, which reads as under:-
4.10. The contention raised in the para that the respondents acted arbitrarily is wrong and denied. The applicant has been given promotion in terms of the Central Secretariat Official Language Recruitment Rules, 2006. However, in case the Honble Tribunal directs the respondents are ready to refer the case of the applicant to Review DPC to consider the suitability of Shri Suresh Chandra Chaturvedi for promotion in the vacancy year 2008.
21. It is true that the DPC held on 27.07.2010 considered the case of the applicant on the basis of the remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 2004-05. Therefore, the case of the applicant was kept pending. This decision is against the spirit of the decision in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar versus Union of India (supra) and Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (supra) and a number of similar judicial pronouncements. We are in agreement that the case of the applicant for the post of Senior Translator has to be considered by a review DPC to be convened for this purpose. However, we find that the ACRs as stated above had been communicated and the representation of the applicant had been considered by the respondents complying with the provisions of OM dated 13.04.2010. The reviewing authority has not accepted the representation of the applicant for upgradation. Challenge to the below benchmark reports was on a different ground as we have seen in the preceding paragraphs. We find that having complied with the provisions of OM dated 13.04.2010, these remarks no longer remain un-communicated. Therefore, the points raised by the applicant regarding his consideration do not appear to be sustainable. Thus, we are unable to agree with the applicant that a review DPC be held ignoring the below benchmark remarks for the year 2004-05 as has been prayed by him. We may add here that the order for consideration need not be very lengthy and elaborate. It is even possible to record an order in brief. After all brevity is the soul of all quasi judicial decisions.
22. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant OA with the following directions:-
1. A review DPC be held to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Senior Translator against the vacancies of 2006-08;
2. The ACRs as communicated and the decision of the reviewing authority and that of the department should be placed before the DPC for the purpose;
3. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. B.K. Sinha) (Syed Rafat Alam) Member (A) Chairman /naresh/