Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. A.K. Chohdda vs The Secretary on 14 September, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3067/2010 With MA No.3028/2010 New Delhi, this the 14th day of September, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) Mr. A.K. Chohdda, S/o Late V.P. Chohdda, Retired Dy. Director General (S) of DGS&D, R/o 332, Pocket-C, SFS, Trivani Apartments, Sheikh Sarai Phase-I, New Delhi-17. Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar) Versus 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Director General, Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 3. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. 4. Director (Appointment Committee of Cabinet), Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi. 5. Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. 6. Mr.A.K. Saxena, Deputy Director General (S), Presently, Joint Director General, Organising committee, Commonwealth Games, Delhi-2010 New Delhi City Centre Tower II, Opposite Jantar Mantar, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001. Residence Address : I-17, Sector 12, NOIDA -201301. 7. Mr. V.K. Gupta, Retired Director (Supplies), Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 8. Mr. Farukh Hamid, Retired Dy. Director (S) DGS&D Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 9. Mr. Chandan Singh, Retired Dy. Director (S) DGS&D Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 10. Mr. Rana S. Singh, Retired Dy. Director (S) DGS&D Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 11. Mr. Girdhari Lal (SC), Retired Dy. Director (S) Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 12. Mr. Surjit Lal (SC), Retired Dy. Director (S) DGS&D Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. 13. Mr. J.N. Joshi, Retired Dy. Director (S) DGS&D Through, Director (Administration), Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001. Respondents . (By Advocate : Mr. B.K. Berera for Respondent Nos.1&2 & Mrs. B. Rana for Respondent No.5) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
Shri A.K. Chohdda, the applicant herein, seeks his promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) on the basis of selection cum merit method for the year 2002-03 on the main ground that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) has not graded him as Outstanding (OS) as he has four OS gradings in five years period. Had he been graded as OS instead of Very Good (VG) by the DPC, he would have marched over his seniors who secured VG and would have been promoted. His averment is that DPC has rated him as VG in the meeting held on 1.7.2008 as a result of which he has not been promoted in the year 2002-03 to the post of DDG (S) in the DGS&D. Further, it was his case that had he been promoted in the year 2002-03, he would have been eligible to be promoted to the post of ADG(S) w.e.f. 01.04.2006. He feels that he has been discriminated and has, therefore, come to the Tribunal in the instant OA with following prayers :-
1. Direct the Respondents No.1 to 4 to take a view to differ with the Recommendations of UPSC in the Review DPC held on 01.07.2008 in terms of para 16.4.2 of Part V of DOP&T OM No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.1989 in view of the position given above and grant promotion to the applicant to the post of DDG (S) DGS&D w.e.f. 12.08.2002 and further to the post of ADG (S) DGS&D w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to comply with the order passed on 29.10.2007 by Honble Delhi High Court.
OR
2.i) Quash the proceedings and recommendations of the review DPC held on 1-7-2008.
Direct the respondents to hold fresh review DPC by members notified in schedule III of Recruitment Rules 1994 and of designations present in regular DPC of 28-5-2002 but under chairmanship of another member UPSC to avoid repetition of violations of rules and repetition of incorrect assessment.
Further direct that being fresh review DPC to be held as per rules and instructions applicable at the time of regular DPC of 28-5-2002 shall apply.
Directing the respondents that ACR of 1999-2000 of one officer Sh. A.K.Saxena lost in transit can not be substituted by preceding or subsequent years ACR and only ACRs of the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 & 2000-2001 as were available in duplicate on the date of regular DPC held on 28-5-2002, may only be considered as two copies of ACRs in original are written for Indian Supply Service Group A Officers at the same time. Para 4 of DOPT OM No.21011/02/2009-Estt (A) dated 16th February 2009 regarding completion of past ACRs will not be applicable to this case as respondents have furnished Non Availability Certificate dated 15-03-2002 before regular DPC of 28-5-2002 to UPSC which has been accepted by UPSC and reiterated by respondent no. 1 & 2 in letter No.A32013/5/2007-A1 dated 01-02-2008.
That the Applicant is entitled to be assessed outstanding as per Para 6.2.1(f) of OM No.22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10-4-1989 and may be assessed accordingly.
via) The assessment sheets of all the officers in the zone of consideration for the panel of 2002-03 drawn in review DPC held on 1-7-2008 may be produced along with original records of the then prevailing Guidelines of the Commission for assessing the officers as outstanding and very good, applicable at the time of regular DPC of 28.05.2002 for the panel of 2002-03.
Call for the ACR of Shri A.K. Saxena conditionally promoted to the Post of ADG(S) for the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 2000-01 in view of para 4.16 from Respondent No.2 and record his gradings, And direct the respondents to grant promotion to the Applicant to the post of DDG(S) DGS&D w.e.f. 12-08-2002 and further promotion to the post of ADG(S) DGS&D w.e.f. 1-4-2006, the dates officer junior to the Applicant was promoted alongwith consequential benefits as ordered by Honble Court on 29-10-2007.
Pass any other order or orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The genesis of his above grievances can be traced to the cases he has filed before this Tribunal on more or less same/similar issue. In OA No.1072/2005 he raised the issue whether the UPSC while convening the DPC for the post of DDG (S) could have taken into account the procedure laid down in the Recruitment Rules of 9.9.1994 as selection by merit though there were instructions dated 08.02.2002 with the criteria of selection subject to unfit. The OA was allowed in the order dated 15.9.2005 with certain directions but the respondents challenged the said order through RA No.203/2006 and sought some clarfiications. The RA was allowed on 22.1.2007 with modification of the operative part of the judgment i.e. para 26 of the order dated 15.9.2005. The relevant part of the orders passed in the said RA is extracted below :-
Para 26 would now read as follows :
Respondents shall hold Review DPC for all the vacancies starting from the year 2001-2002 till May, 2004 by following the criteria of selection by merit;
Prepare a panel year-wise and To decide seniority of all such officers according to new panel and issue corrected seniority list of Dy. D.G. within a reasonable period;
(i) It is, however, clarified that in case applicant/other officers become entitled to be promoted from an earlier date in view of recommendations to be made by review DPC, they would be entitled to any notional pay fixation from that date in view of 2008(5) SCC 673 State of UP and Ors. Vs. Raj Kishore Yadav and Anr.
(ii) No recovery shall be made from those officers, who were already promoted but have to be adjusted in view of review DPC.
4. With the above directions, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
5. As far as request of original applicant is concerned, no further direction can be given in the RA filed by original respondents and in any case, consideration for the post of ADG would become relevant only after applicant is found suitable by the review DPC and his promotion as DDG gets antedated on account of said review DPC and if he is eligible for ADG. Therefore, nothing more need be clarified at this stage.
6. In view of above, RA is allowed in terms of the clarifications as given in paras above. Registry is directed to issue corrected copy of the judgment to all the parties within a week. The above order was assailed by the Union of India in the WP(C) No.2832/2007 before the Honble High Court of Delhi. The said Writ was decided on 20.09.2007 in the following manner:-
12. We find that review was filed primarily for seeking correction of factual error which crept in the order and the revised directions which have now been given do not affect any of the respondents. Admittedly there was no DPC held for any vacancies for the year 2000-2001. DPC which was held was for one vacancy for the year 2001-2002 and four vacancies for the year 2002-2003 and the selection made on the basis of these DPCs was under challenge before the Tribunal. Though learned counsel for Respondent No.2 disputes that there was no abolition of vacancies in the year 2000-2001, that will not have any bearing in any case inasmuch as, as pointed out above, no DPC was even originally held for these vacancies and was not the subject matter of challenge also in the original OA filed by respondent No.1. If there were vacancies for the year 2000-2001 and if they are not abolished, as contended by learned counsel for respondent No.2 he may have a separate remedy in this behalf.
13. Thus, though there may be some substance in the grievance of respondent No.2 that when the order in review was passed, he was not heard, we have heard learned counsel for respondent No.2 while examining the validity, or otherwise, of order passed in review application and are of the view that the said order does not prejudicially affect respondent No.2 in any manner than the impugned order passed in the OA.
14. We uphold the order passed in review application as well subject to aforesaid observations. The upshoot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that present petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The review DPC was convened by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on 01.07.2008, re-examined the ACRs of the eligible officers by following the criteria of selection on merit and the applicant at Sl. No.12 was graded as Very Good and could not be included in the panel for the vacancy year 2002-03 against four vacancies as officers senior to him having the same grading of Very Good were included in the panel. For the vacancy year 2003-04, the applicant was again considered against four vacancies by the Review DPC and was rated as Very Good and recommended by UPSC on 02.7.2008 for implementation. Not finding the said recommendations of the Review DPC to his liking he filed the Contempt Petition in CM(M) No.364/2008 which was dismissed by the Honble High Court of Delhi on 22.3.2010 holding that the Review DPC followed the criteria as laid down for selection to the post. He moved the High Court with a Review Petition No.192/2010 in the said Contempt Petition which met with the same fate of dismissal in the High Court order dated 02.6.2010. Applicant approached the Honble High Court in another Writ WP(C) 5388/2010 which was also dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 10.8.2010. In the background of the spate of litigation as aforesaid, the applicant is, therefore, before the Tribunal in the instant OA.
3. Shri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel represented the applicant and referred to the above facts. He anchored the case of the applicant on six principal grounds. (i) The post of Secretary/Additional Secretary in the Department of Supply did not exist at the time of Regular DPC which met on 28.05.2002. But, the Secretary, Department of Commerce (Supply Division) attended the Review DPC meeting held on 01.07.2008 as one of the Departmental Members. The latter was not supposed to attend the said meeting of the Review DPC in terms of composition of DPC for Group-A officers provided in Schedule III of Indian Supply Service Rules, 1994. (ii) The UPSC criteria for assessing Outstanding and Very Good as was prevailing at the time of regular DPC of 28.05.2002 stated in para 8 of the minute of Review DPC has not been correctly followed in the Review DPC held on 01.07.2008. The criteria of assessment should be 4 out of 5 ACRs with Outstanding grading out of which latest two consecutive ACRs must be with Outstanding grading and for assessing an officer Very Good 4 out of 5 ACRs should be with Very Good grading. (iii) In terms of DOP&T instructions / guidelines, for assessing the Confidential Reports, it is contended that all the five ACRs of the applicant for the year 1996-97 to 2000-2001 for the panel year 2002-03 should be assessed as Outstanding instead of Very Good as assessed by the Review DPC held on 01.07.2008. (iv) The Counsel for the applicant would submit that the Review DPC did not examine all ACRs of 34 officers in detail but finalized the whole proceedings within 90 minutes which meant that the Members of the Review DPC did not apply their mind to assess the ACRs of all the candidates coming within the zone of consideration. (v) The Review DPC wrongly examined the ACR of preceding year in respect of respondent no.6, viz. Shri A. K. Saxena, in lieu of his ACR for the year 1999-2000, which was lost in transit. The Review DPC should have considered only four ACRs of respondent no.6 which were available at the time of regular DPC. (vi) The respondents No.1, 2 & 5 delayed implementation of Honble High Court order dated 29.10.2007 much beyond the period of 3 months stipulated therein. In view of the above contentions Shri Santosh Kumar pleads to allow OA with the appropriate directions to the official respondents.
4. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the 1st and 2nd respondents have filed their reply affidavit on 18.01.2011. Shri B. K. Barera, learned Counsel appearing on their behalf would contend that the applicant was misusing the process of law as the review DPC held on 01.07.2008 followed the prescribed procedure and the applicant had been granted promotion for the panel year 2003-04 to the post of DDG(S). He, controverting the grounds taken by the applicant, would contend that after the merger of Department of Supply with Department of Commerce, the RR had been amended as per which Secretary (Commerce) was made a member of the DPC. It is contended that UPSC cannot blindly accept the gradings given by the concerned authorities in the ACR but can make its own assessment after going through the entire ACR and more specifically various parameters and attributes. Endorsing the contentions advanced by the counsel for the fifth respondent, Shri Barera pleads to dismiss the OA.
5. Smt. Bindra Rana, learned counsel representing the fifth respondent, UPSC contended that at the time of the Review DPC held on 01.07.2008, the Secretary (Commerce) attended the DPC meeting as he was Member of the DPC composition as per the amended RR of 2004 and as such there was no infirmity in the composition of Review DPC. She submits that as per DOP&T OM dated 10.04.1989 the DPC has full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates considered by them. She referred to the Circular dated 11.07.2000 to state as to how the CRs could be assessed as Outstanding and Very Good. It is further stated that UPSC followed the method properly in Review DPC and fixed overall assessment as Very Good. The Review DPC adopted selection on merit as the basis for the vacancies of 2001-02 till May, 2004. With regard to the powers of the DPC for assessment of the ACRs for promotion of officers, Mrs. Brindra Rana placed her reliance on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Katiyar (Mrs. Versus Union of India and Others [1997 (1) SCC 280], Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and Others versus Dr. B. S. Mahajan and Others [1990 (1) SCC 305]; Nutan Arvind versus Union of India and Another [1996(2) SCC 488]; UPSC versus H. L. Dev and Others [AIR 1988 SC 1069] to state that the Courts and Tribunals should not sit over the assessment made by the DPC as an appellate authority and the jurisdiction to make the selection vests with the DPC and not with the Tribunal. Denying the contention that DPC took short time to examine the ACRs of 34 candidates, she contends that the DPC has full discretion to design its procedures for assessment of ACRs and applicant cannot raise finger at the expert body. In respect of lost ACRs of Shri A. K. Saxena, she submits that procedure prescribed in the DOP&T OM dated 10.04.1989 has been followed by the official respondents. In view of her above contentions, she pleads that the OA should be dismissed.
6. Through MA No.3028/2010, the applicant has filed an amended memo of parties deleting three private respondents from the array of parties in the OA. The amended memo of parties is allowed.
7. Despite service of notice on the private respondents, neither they submitted their reply affidavits-nor they argued their respective points nor they were represented by their Counsels during the final hearing. We note that while deciding the controversy in this OA, we do not have the views of the private respondents.
8. Having heard the above contentions of the parties, with the assessment of their counsel, we perused the pleadings as well. It must be noted here that the contentions raised in the hearing have been considered by us along with the relied on judgments. The principal controversy is- whether the Review DPC which met on 01.07.2008 has correctly assessed the ACRs of the applicant for the post of DDG(S) for the panel year 2002-03?
9. On our direction, the 5th respondent placed before us the UPSC file No.F.1/10(1)/2008-AP-2. We very closely and carefully scrutinized the said file. We noticed that the meeting of the Review Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 01.07.2008 in the office of the Union Public Service Commission, where Dr. K. K. Paul, Member, UPSC Chaired the meeting and Shri G. K. Pillai, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Supply Division) and Shri M. Raman, Director General, Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D) participated as Members. The Review DPC took note that the Indian Supply Service (Group A) Rules 1994 inter alia provided that vacancies in the Senior Administrative Grade (Deputy Director General) would be filled by selection on merit by promotion of officers in the Junior Administrative Grade with eight years regular service in the (including service, if any, rendered in the non functional selection grade) or 17 years regular service in Group A post of the service out of which four years regular service should be in Junior Administrative Grade. Further, the Review DPC has been guided by the instructions contained in Para 6.3.1 (i) of the DOP&T OM No.22011/5/86-Estt (D) dated 10.04.89 read with OM No.22011/5/91-Estt.(D) dated 27.3.1997 which inter alia provides that in respect of posts which are in the level of `12000-16500 and above, the benchmark grade should be Very Good. However, officers who are graded as Outstanding would rank enblock senior to those who are graded as Very Good and placed in the select panel accordingly upto the number of vacancies, officers with same grading maintaining their inter se seniority in the feeder post. Thus, it must be noted that the above guidelines permitted supercession in Selection. But the guidelines for promotion were revised by the DOP&T vide their OM No.35034/7/97-Estt.(D) dated 8.2.2002, as per which the DPC would examine merits of those officers being assessed for promotion with reference to the prescribed benchmark and accordingly grade the officers as fit or unfit only. Only those who are graded fit (i.e. who meet the prescribed benchmark) by the DPC shall be included and arranged in the select panel in order of their inter se seniority in the feeder grade. Those officers who are graded unfit by the DPC will not be included in the select panel. It is evident that there would be no supercession in promotion among those who are graded fit by the DPC. It is further noticed that the said revised guidelines further stipulated that the DPC would assess the suitability of eligible employees in the zone of consideration for inclusion in the panel for promotion up to a number which is considered sufficient against the number of vacancies. The said OM dated 8.2.2002 inter alia stipulated that the Ministries/Departments should take steps to amend service/recruitment rules of various services/posts so as to appropriately incorporate the mode of promotion as Selection in place of Selection by Merit. It is noted that the Rule 7 (4) of the Indian Supply Service (Group-A) Rules, 1994 provided that all selection of officers for promotion shall be made by selection on merits except two categories indicated at (a) and (b) of the said sub rule. But the SAG level promotions attracted the clause selection on merit. On the basis of the DOP&T OM dated 08.02.2002, the rule 7 (4) was amended vide Notification dated 21.06.2004 and the selection on merit was replaced by Selection. Hence, selection on merit procedure was applicable for the preparation of panel for the year 2002-03.
10. We further note that the DPCs have been held earlier on 28.05.2002, 28.04.2003, 12.01.2004 and 12.07.2004. It is seen from the UPSC file that the Review DPC was informed about the developments in case of the judicial findings on the applicants case by the High Court of Delhi and this Tribunal in various cases. The records reveal that a DPC was held on 28.04.2003 to consider promotions against 02 supplementary vacancies for the year 2002-03 and 04 vacancies pertaining to the year 2003-04. As two posts of Deputy Director General (Supplies) were abolished due to the cadre restructuring of the DGS&D, the recommendations of the DPC in respect of 02 supplementary vacancies for the year 2002-03 could not be operationalised which led to the holding of a Review DPC on 12th January, 2004 to review the proceedings of the DPC held on 28.04.2003. The Review DPC also took into account only 04 vacancies pertaining to the year 2003-04. We find from the records that the applicant who was earlier considered and recommended at Sl. No.1 of panel against the vacancy year 2003-04 by the DPC held on 28.04.2003, was considered at Sl. No.4 of the eligibility list by the Review DPC and recommended for inclusion in the panel at Sl. No.3 against the vacancy year 2003-04 and he was promoted to the post of DDG(S). In view of the above, it is seen that Review DPC took into account the vacancy position in the following manner viz. 2001-02 one vacancy, 2002-03 four vacancies, 2003-04 four vacancies and 2004-05 one vacancy and all those were in the unreserved category.
11. It is noticed that the Review DPC reexamined the character rolls of the eligible officers following the criteria of Selection on Merit. The Review DPC were also informed that as per the then prevailing guidelines of the Commission for grading an officer as Very Good, he was required to attain any 3 (or more) grading as Very Good in 5 ACRs and in order to be graded as Outstanding an officer was required to attain 4 Outstanding grades in the 5 ACRs including the latest ACR. The Committee accordingly assessed (i) 4 Officers as Very Good and put one officer in the sealed cover for one vacancy for the year 2001-02; (ii) 11 officers as Very Good and put one officer in the sealed cover for four vacancies for the year 2002-03 and the applicant could not find place in the panel as he was assessed as Very Good and his seniors securing the same rating were empanelled and (iii) 10 officers were rated as Very Good, one officer as Good and another officer was put in the sealed cover for the year 2003-04 to fill up four vacancies, and the applicant was placed in the Serial No.3 in the panel for the said year and was promoted.
12. From the above analysis, we find that the applicant has not come within the zone of consideration for the panel year 2001-02, he has been considered for the year 2002-03 at serial number 13 and has been rated as Very Good but as his seniors also have received same Very Good rating he has not been placed in the panel. In this context, we compared the applicants gradings as are indicated in the ACR folder and the grading assigned to him by the Review DPC. We encapsule herewith Comparative Statement-the grading received by the applicant from the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities in his concerned year/period ACR and the grading assigned by the Review DPC.
Year Assessment Grading assigned by Grading indicated by the Review DPC Reporting Authority Reviewing Authority Accepting Authority 1996-97 Very Good No reporting Outstanding Not assigned 1997-98 Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 1998-99 Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Very Good 1999-2000 Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Very Good 2000-2001 Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Very Good 2001-2002 1.04.2001 to 30.09.2001 1.10.2001 to January, 2002 Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Very Good 2002-2003 Very Good No reporting Outstanding Not assigned Overall assessment by the Review DPC Very Good
13. At this juncture, we must mention that we have not perused the ACRs of other officers who were in the zone of consideration for the panel year 2002-03.
14. In the above table, we have also brought in the grading received by the applicant for the years 1996-97 (one year prior to the ACRs considered by Review DPC) and 2002-03 (one year ACR after the ACRs considered by the Review DPC) along with the ACR gradings received by him in five years from the authorities and the assessment indicated for those years by the Review DPC. We have perused the ACR of those years of the applicant and we wonder in what manner the assessment has been done by the Review DPC. In our considered opinion, the assessment of the applicants ACRs has been consistently Outstanding and the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities have assessed him for four successive years Outstanding. It is seen from the note that those authorities are different. He has received Very Good rating only for one year. As per the then prevailing guidelines four out of five year gradings in the ACRs, the officer would be graded as Outstanding. In this regad, we may refer to the UPSCs circular dated 11.07.2007 which provides method of assessment in DPC, as per which for grading an officer as Outstanding five CRs will be examined and the criteria of four out of five CRs including the latest CR to be Outstanding. The applicants four CRs undoubtedly has Outstanding grading by the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities. A question persist in our mind why the Review DPC did not follow the then extant guidelines in overall assessing of the applicant as Outstanding? Neither of the parties could clarify the point. Had he been assigned the overall grading as Outstanding he would have marched over those rated as Very Good in the panel for the year 2002-03. But, we find that his annual and overall assessment has been done by the Review DPC in a casual and arbitrary manner. Thus, we are of the considered view that Review DPC has not properly assessed the applicant for the panel year 2002-03. We are aware of the limited power that the Tribunal exercises in the matters like this while exercising the judicial review power. We are restraining ourselves and are not fixing his overall rating but leaving matter to be relooked into and reassessed by a fresh Review DPC. Terming the Applicants overall ACR assessment done by the Review DPC as Very Good as arbitrary, de hors the extant guidelines and illegal, is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.
15. Counsel for the respondents raised the contention that the DPC can design its own methods for assessing the ACRs and is not bound by the grading assigned in the ACRs of the officers. In this context, it would be appropriate for us to mention that the UPSC which conducted the DPC has given the guidelines to the DPC as to how the ACR of an officer is to be assessed and the gradings to be assigned. We have stated in Paragraph 14 that the UPSC circular dated 11.07.2007 provides the method of assessment in DPC, as per which, for the grading an officer as Outstanding Confidential Reports would be examined and if the four out of five Confidential Reports are found to be Outstanding, the officer would be rated as Outstanding. This method having been prescribed by the UPSC for the DPC convened by it, our careful study of the ACRs of the applicant would manifest that not only the grading has been assigned as Outstanding by the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities for four years, even within recordings in the narrative part made by the said authorities reveal such comments which will corroborate the ultimate grading of Outstanding. Therefore, in the garb of adopting the methodology for assessment of the ACRs by the DPC, the applicants ACRs could not have been graded as Very Good in an arbitrary manner for four years i.e. 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 & 2001-2002. Even if, the DPC has to assess the ACRs in its own way, the DPC has to only refer to the contents of the gradings given in the ACRs.
16. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the panel for the year 2002-03 for the post of DDG (S) drawn by the Review DPC needs to be revisited as the applicants ACRs have not been properly assessed. The official respondents are directed to convene a fresh Review DPC only for the year 2002-03 for the said post as expeditiously as possible but preferably within a period of 3 months. In case he gets overall Outstanding grading, and finds place in the panel for the year 2002-03, he shall be offered the post of DDG (S) w.e.f. the date other already included panelists of 2002-03 have been appointed and he will be entitled to all consequential benefits like seniority, pay and allowances and consideration for his promotion to the next higher post of Addl. DG (S) if he is eligible otherwise. It is noted that the applicant on attaining the age of superannuation has retired from service. Thus, the applicants consequential benefits would include pensionary/retiral benefits too.
17. Resultantly, the OA having merits is allowed in terms of our above observations and directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali) Member (A) Chairman /pj/