Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anil Kumar Joshi vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 15 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.2740/2010 New Delhi this the 15th day of March, 2011 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibeer, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) Anil Kumar Joshi, S/o Sh. Surjit Singh Joshi, R/o A-202, DMRC Staff Flats, Metro Vihar, Shastri Park, Delhi-110053 -Applicant (By Advocate: Pt. Sama Singh) -VERSUS- 1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, (Through its Managing Director 13, Fire Brigade Lane, Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 2. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, O&M, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, 13, Fire Brigade Lane, Metro Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 3. Additional General Manager, Recruitment & Training, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, Metro Bhawan,Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 -Respondents (By Advocates: Shri Chandan Kumar) O R D E R (Oral)
Mrs. Meera Chhibber:
The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.05.2010 whereby he has been informed that he had obtained 41 marks & 15 marks in written & interview of LDS respectively. He could not be empanelled, as he could not get the minimum benchmark of ACR points i.e. 11 marks out of last three years ACR (maximum 15) which is also a pre-requirement for empanelment.
2. It is stated by the counsel for the applicant that in the Notice dated 01.09.2009, which is annexed at page 50, for the post of JE/Electronics, mode of selection was (a) Written Examination (b) Interview (c) Service Record (ACRs) & marks obtained under Positive Discipline Code of Conduct & Standard of Excellence (d) Psycho Test for selection to the post of SC/TO. The subjects for the examination and marks allotted for each component of selection were as under:-
Components of Selection Maximum Marks Qualifying Mars for Genl. Candidates for unreserved posts Qualifying Marks SC/ST candidates reserved posts
(a) Written Examination-It may consist of subjective type (75%) and objective type (25%) test of Two hours duration 60 36 30
(b) Interview 25 13 09
(c) Service Record (ACRs) & marks under Positive Discipline Code of Conduct & Standard of Excellence 15 11 11 Total 100 60 50
(d) Pyscho Test (in case of the selection for the post of SC/TO) Qualifying Qualifying
3. The applicant had applied for the post of JE/Electronics. Though he had got the qualifying marks in the written and interview but he was not selected only because he did not get minimum 11 marks for the ACRs. According to him, he was given Good grading in the ACR for the years 2006-07 and 2008-09, due to which he could not get the minimum marks under CRs heading while these ACRs were never communicated to the applicant. He had earlier also been denied selection in the year 2008 whereupon he had approached the Honble High Court of Delhi. His Writ Petition was dismissed but when he carried the matter in LPA, the Division Bench was pleased to pass the following order:-
In the instant case, the entries for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 ought to have been communicated to the appellant as the said entries are adequate and Good and have adverse impact on the career of the appellant. We therefore direct that the entries for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 be communicated to the appellant within a period of four weeks from today. On being communicated, the appellant may make a representation if he so chooses against the said entry within four weeks, and the said representation will be decided within two months thereafter. If the said entries are updated, the appellant may be considered for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer and in case the appellant is promoted, then he should be given appropriate deemed date when his junior was promoted to this post.
4. After the above judgment, the ACRs for the period of 2005-06 and 2006-07 were communicated to the applicant but the ACR for the period 2008-09 has still not been communicated to the applicant. It is under these circumstances, the applicant has challenged the grading Good given to him in the ACR for the period from 2008-09.
5. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the judgment in Dev Dutt Vs. UOI & Ors., 2008 (8) SCC 725, has been referred to the larger Bench in Union of India Vs. A.K. Goel & Ors.. case, therefore, as on date, no further orders need to be passed in this case. He also submitted that after filing of this OA, the applicant has already been communicated the grading Good in the ACR for the year 2008-09 and the applicant has already given his representation also to the appellate authority, therefore, OA may be dismissed.
6. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings as well. It is seen that vide letter dated 28.10.2010, the applicant has been communicated the grading Good for the year 2008-09, which has been accepted by the CSTE-1. However, copy of the ACR has still not been communicated to the applicant. After all, the final grading would be dependent on the attributes, written in individual columns of the ACRs of the applicant. Unless, he knows what is mentioned in the individual columns in the ACR, he would not be in a position to challenge the grading Good which is adversely affecting his promotion so he should be given full CR for the period of 2008-09 so that he may give effective representation. It has already been held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) that Good entry in the ACR of the appellant, which has not been communicated to him, but considered in the DPC, which found him unfit for promotion, is to be communicated for representation. If upgradation is allowed by the competent authority, he should be considered for promotion retrospectively by the DPC.
7. Counsel for the respondent produced OM dated 27.4.2010 but this only states that the matter has been referred to the larger bench. There is neither any stay of the judgment given by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt nor this office memorandum states that the Dev Dutts case is not to be followed. Therefore, so long the judgment of Dev Dutt is in vogue, the respondents are bound by it. We, therefore, direct the respondents to give entire ACR of the year 2008-09 to the applicant within two weeks so that he may give his representation thereon within four weeks thereafter. The respondents shall consider the representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order within three weeks thereafter. In case the respondents decide to upgrade the ACR of the applicant for the year 2008-09, they would reconsider the applicants case for the selection to the post of JE/Electronics, which was held pursuant to the Notice dated 1.9.2009 and pass necessary orders.
8. The OA is disposed of with above directions. No costs.
(Dr. Veena Chhotray) (Meera Chhibber) Member (A) Member (J)