Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr Saroj Kumar Suman vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 17 December, 2025
(OA No.25-2023)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No.25/2023
Reserved on:28.11.2025
Pronounced on:17.12.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr.Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Dr. Saroj Kumar Suman,
Silver Bell 313, Shalimar City,
Sahibabad, Ghaziabad,
U.P.-201005. ...Applicant.
(By Advocate: Mr.V.K.Singh, Ms.Sonakshi Chinda & Ms.Divya Arora)
Versus
1. Union of India,
The Secretary,
Ministry Labour and Employment,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Employees State Insurance Corporation
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg,
New Delhi-110002 through its
Director General (DG)
3. The Director (M)
Directorate (Medical) Delhi
ESIC Scheme, Hospital Complex
Tilak Vihar, New Delhi. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Mr.Avnish Kumar)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A):
The applicant is aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary action of the respondents whereby he has not been promoted despite being eligible for promotion from the post of Insurance Medical Officer (IMO) Grade I to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) vide DPC held on 07.09.2021 with list declared on 21.09.2021. In view of the aforesaid actions of the respondents, the applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):-
"a) To declare the action of the respondents in not promoting the applicant to CMO from IMO Grade I from the actual date as, illegal and issue directions to the respondents to hold review DPC and consider the Applicant for promotion to CMO from the due date of the DPC i.e., 07.09.2021 vide list 13.09.2021, and vide DPC dated 21.01.2022/21.02.2022 with list on 25.01.2022 and 21.09.2022 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (2)
b) To discard the APAR grading given to Applicant of '5' termed as 'good' for the year 2011-2012 since the Applicant was not informed regarding the same.
c) To direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion to the CMO.
d) To Direct the respondents to issue NRC for the period of 20-16-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.
e) To direct the respondent to form a review committee for the DPC conducted on 07.09.2021 and 13.09.2021, and DPC conducted on 21.01.2022/21.02.2022 vide list on 25.01.2022 and also vide DPC dated 21.09.2022 and to include the name of Applicant in the list of promotees for the post of CMO and place the Applicant above his juniors.
d) Allow the OA with all consequential reliefs.
g) Pass any further order, direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is presently working as IMO Grade I, MD Medicine as Designated Senior Resident ESIC Medical College and Hospital Alwar, Rajasthan since 01.10.2021. He was promoted to IMO Grade I with Grade Pay of Rs.6600/- in PB-3 vide Office Order dated 01.05.2015 and thus became due to be promoted as CMO. The applicant was promoted to this post on APAR rating of 5 which is 'Good' for the year 2011-2012 and the rating of 'Very Good' in the subsequent years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 (Annexure-5).
3. It is submitted that the applicant joined ESIC as IMO, Grade-II in ESIC Dispensary at Tigri, Delhi. From thereon, the applicant was transferred to ESIC Dispensary, Mehrauli, Delhi as IMO, Grade-I. The applicant is an exemplary in his field and always worked on bettering his performance and experience and in pursuance of that the respondents decided to send him to pursue MD in Medicine PG Course and hence he went on a study leave for 3 years from 2016 to 2019 with full pay at Command Hospital, Kolkata (E.C) as per ESIC headquarter Orders and after that the applicant came back to work at ESIC Dispensary Mehrauli, New Delhi. After some time, he was transferred to IG E.S.I.C Hospital, Jhilmil Delhi and worked as MD Medicine Physician, CMO of Emergency Duty and as CMO Casualty and worked like Senior Resident Medicine (without official order), IMO Grade I, and as Nodal Officer of H.D.U and in this role he completed KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (3) construction work and started the functioning of the High Dependence Unit.
4. Emphasizing that the applicant has been an outstanding performer throughout, it is also submitted that while applicant was serving at IG E.S.I.C Hospital, his name was suggested to N.M.C inspection of faculty, for D.N.B (Medicine Course) which was proposed to start. On 1 October, 2021, he was posted in Medicine Department as Designated Senior Resident/IMO - I, besides Senior Resident Medicine, he is Nodal Officer of R.O.D.C Alwar, Nodal Officer of Yoga, Nodal Officer of HIV, Nodal Officer for Security, Maintenance and Housekeeping Staff at ESIC Medical College and Hospital Alwar, Rajasthan. He was also Nodal Officer for Doctor's Day Celebration on 1 July, 2022. The applicant was widely congratulated and appreciated for the exemplary work done by him in patient care during the Covid period. The applicant has also been invited as a guest on many TV News shows and also on YouTube Channel.
5. The applicant requests that despite having such exemplary record, he was overlooked for promotion in the DPC dated 07.09.2021 vide promotion list released by ESIC Headquarter dated 13.09.2021 and no reason was given as to why he was overlooked. The applicant was again overlooked for promotion vide DPC dated 21.01.2022/21.02.2022 in the promotion list dated 25.01.2022 in which many of his juniors were also promoted but his name did not figure and he was again overlooked in review DPC dated 21.09.2022. After seeing this injustice meted out to him, the applicant made a representation before the Respondent dated 05.05.2022, through its Director General, ESIC Headquarter, Delhi in which he had asked for reason/s as to why he was not being promoted from IMO Grade-I to CMO and requested the Respondent Organization to look into the same. The applicant received no reply for the same and hence made another representation to the respondent dated 23.08.2022.
6. It is further stated that in the meantime another DPC was constituted for promotion of Medical Officers in GDMO Sub-cadre (Medical) working as IMO Grade-I in the level 11 pay matrix to the post of CMO in the level 12 Pay matrix (under DACP Scheme, Recruitment Regulations of ESIC etc.) vide Office Order dated KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (4) 21.09.2022. The respondent-Department finally came out with a reply dated 28.09.2022, wherein the Respondent Organization has listed the reason for not promoting him to CMO. In the DPC held on 07.09.2021, it was mentioned that the applicant was due for promotion after 5 years of service i.e., on 23.02.2019 as per qualifying service criteria of 5 years. As the due date fell within the year 2018-2019, as per rule APARs for the period of 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 were to be considered and since the applicant was on Study Leave from 2016 till 2019 APAR for the year 2016-2017 was not assessed. Therefore, the DPC considered APAR for the previous year i.e., 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-2014, only in the year 2011-2012 the APAR grading awarded was "5" which is termed as "Good". Since DPC declared fit those candidates only having Very Good grading in all APARs under consideration along with vigilance clearance and other relevant documents the applicant was found unfit for the post of CMO by DPC held on 07.09.2021. The same reason was given for DPC held on 21.01.2022 for the year 2019-20 and for DPC held on 21.01.2022 for the year 2020-21. The applicant's contention is that the grading of aforesaid APAR of 2011-12 was never communicated to him depriving him of the opportunity to make a representation.
7. The respondents in their counter reply have stated that the applicant joined ESIC on 23.02.2010 as IMO, Grade-II in General Duty Medical Officer Sub cadre. During the APAR assessment year 2011-12, he was posted at ESIC Dispensary, Tigri and was assessed by Reporting and Reviewing officers as under:
Name of the Date Overall Pen picture
officer grading
Reporting 10.04.2012 '5' He is good and hardworking medical
Officer Dr. officer. He sees the patients very well
Meena but he also does not take
Gautam, SAG responsibility about the department
of injection room. He also has not
mentioned about the work not done
department. He has written irrelevant
in col. 2(b) and 3.
Reviewing 28.09.2013 '5' He is good, hardworking officer with
Officer potential competence. Has to take
Dr.S.K.Kohli responsibility of the duty assigned by
the administration where he needs
improvement. Has positive attitude
towards weaker section.
KEDA KEDAR
RAM
R 2025.12.19
14:54:58
RAM +05'30'
(OA No.25-2023)
(5)
8. It is submitted that as rule of DoP&T OM dated 14.05.2009, a copy of APAR 2011-12 was provided to the applicant for making representation, if any, and acknowledgment for the same was received to ESIC Hqrs Office vide D(M)D letter No. 111-A29(13)2012-Med., dated 23.08.2012. The applicant did not submit any representation on APAR grading/assessment for the 2011-12. Para 2(iv) of DOP&T OM Dated 14.05.2009 inter alia provides that "...in case no representation is received within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that he/she has no representation to make. If the concerned APAR Section does not receive any information from the concerned officer on or before fifteen days from the date of disclosure, the APAR will be treated as final." Therefore, the APAR (2011-12) of applicant was treated as final. It is stated that the applicant was promoted to the post of IMO Grade I w.e.f. 23.02.2014 and he was due for promotion to the post of CMO (GP: 7600/-) on 23.02.2019 as per qualifying service criteria of 5 years regular service (if otherwise eligible) as IMO Grade I.
9. It is further submitted that for granting promotion, all provisions governing promotion, including provisions contained in DoP&T OM dated 10.04.1989, as amended time to time, are referred in Para 6.2.1 (C) of which inter alia provides that 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 (h) above. If this is also not possible, all the available CRs should be taken into account. It further provides as under: -
i. "6.1.2. The DPC enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them".
ii. "6.1.3. While merit has to be recognized and rewarded, advancement in an officer's career should not be regarded as a matter of course, but should be earned by dint of hard work, good conduct and result oriented performance as reflected in the ACRs and based on strict and rigorous selection process".
iii. "6.2.1(b) The DPC should assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service record and with particular reference to the CRs for preceding five years, which KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (6) became available during the year immediately preceding the vacancy/panel year."
iv. "6.2.1(e) - The DPC should not be guided merely by the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the CRs, because it has been noticed that sometimes the overall grading in a CR may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes".
As per para No. 5 of DoP&T OM dated 10.04.1989 (Annexure - V): "Each departmental Committee should decide its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of the candidate. And recommendations may differ of different DPCs while assessing the suitability of the case for promotion as per rules."
10. The respondents submit that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 07.09.2021 for considering promotion to the post of CMO. Due date for considering promotion to CMO was 23.02.2019 which falls in the year 2018-19. As per rule, APARs for the period of 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 to be considered. Since the official was on study leave from 30.05.16 - 29.05.19 (Annexure-VI), APAR for the year 2016-17 was not written as per record. Therefore, the DPC convened on 07.09.2021 considered previous year APAR for the year 2011-12 as per provision under DoP&T OM dated 10.04.1989. Details of APARs grading considered for assessment year 2018-19 are as under: -
APAR Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Assessment 5 7 7.5 6.5 7 Study Leave /Grading It is reiterated that APAR for the year 2011-12 was provided to the applicant for making representation (if any) and acknowledgement for the same was received to ESIC Hqrs. Office vide D(M)D letter No. 111- A29(13)2012-Med., dated 23.08.2023, but no representation was made by him against the APAR. Since DPC convened on 07.09.2021 recommended fit those candidates only having 'Very Good evaluation in all APARs under consideration along with Vigilance Clearance and other relevant documents, the applicant was recommended "unfit for promotion to the post of CMO for the year 2018-19. Accordingly order of promotion was issued in respect of medical officers who were recommended 'Fit' including juniors of the applicant.
KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (7)
11. The respondents further submit that subsequent to above, next DPC was held on 21.01.2022 for considering promotion to the post of CMO for the year 2019-20. As due date falls in the year 2019-20, as per rules APARs for the period 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 to be considered. Since the official was on study leave from 30.05.16-29.05.19, APARs for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 were not written as per record. Therefore, DPC convened on 21.01.2022 considered previous year APARs for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 as per provisions mentioned in DoP&T OM dated 10.04.1989.
Details of APARs grading considered for assessment year 2019-20 are as under:-
APAR Year 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Assessment 5 7 7.5 6.5 7 Study Study /Grading Leave Leave The applicant was again found unfit in the light of his relevant APAR grading for 2011-12.
12. We have heard both the parties and also perused the pleadings on record, including the counter reply, the rejoinder and the additional affidavit filed by them. The issue before us is in a narrow range.
13. The central argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the benchmark grading for the year 2011-12 was not communicated to the applicant depriving him of the opportunity to make a representation and he was considered for promotion based on the same below par grading.
14. It is submitted that his service record has been excellent, as evident from the responsibility lies toward on him. He was overlooked for promotion in the DPC dated 07.09.2021 for which no reason was assigned. Following this, he made a representation through the Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) Headquarter, to which no response was received. However, he received a reply on 28.09.2022 on which the respondents' organization has stated below par grading for not promoting him to the CMO. The respondents did not deny that the applicant was due for promotion after 5 years of service, i.e. 23.02.2019 and his APARs for the period of 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (8) were to be considered. The applicant was on study leave from 2016 till 2019 and APAR for the year 2016-2017 was not assessed.
Therefore, the DPC considered APAR for the previous year i.e. 2011- 2012 wherein the APAR grading awarded was 5 i.e. 'Good'. Since the applicant did not secure the bench mark 'Very Good' he was not found fit. The signature of the applicant can also be verified through his signature which is done by him the department of the respondents earlier and on daily basis.
15. It is further contended that the applicant was considered fit for promotion on the same ratings from the post of IMO Grade II to IMO Grade I vide DPC dated 01.05.2015. Moreover, it is settled law that if the grading is below benchmark for one year and is above benchmark for other years then the grading for that one year could be overlooked. It is stated that the respondents had followed this rule while promoting the applicant from IMO Grade II to IMO Grade I on 01.05.2015 but adopted this rigid outlook in the subsequent DPC.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the APAR grading of the applicant for assessment year 2011-12 and submitted that both reporting and reviewing officers had given him grading of '5' and also observed in his pen picture that he is 'Good' but does not take responsibility of the duty assigned by the administration where he needs improvement. It is also contended that as per DoP&T OM dated 14.05.2009, photocopy copy of APAR was provided to the applicant for making representation and photocopy of so-called acknowledgment given as a token of receipt of APAR for the year 2011-12 has also been received. A list of 7 doctors is enclosed along with list of another list of 61 doctors who were stated to have been communicated their APAR for the year 2011-
12. It is also submitted that all the doctors mentioned in the list have duly acknowledged the receipt of the APAR for the year in question. The said communication of 22/23.08.2012 containing names of 61 doctors captioned "regarding communication of all entries in Annual Performance Appraisal Report for the year 2011-2012- acknowledgment thereof". Refer to Headquarters office letter No.Photocopy/APAR/2011-12/DPC Cell (Medical) dated 16.07.2012 (received in this office on 26.07.2012) on the above noted subject. In this connection, I am to forward herewith acknowledgment receipts of KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (9) APARs of 2011-12 so received from following medical officers as desired. We do not find any acknowledgment receipt contrary to the claim made in the above communication. Along with the aforesaid 61 doctors another hand-written list of 7 doctors has been enclosed. The acknowledgement column of the list of 7 doctors is captioned "Dated signature of Medical Officer as a token of acknowledgment of receipt of APAR for the year 2011-2012" but to our surprise we find that in none of the 7 cases, there is any date of acknowledgement including the applicant. This puts a serious question mark on the authenticity of the list. The mystery behind the aforesaid communication dated 22 deepens further as despite clear direction of the Tribunal dated 3.2.2024, the respondents have failed to place original record relating the aforesaid communication, taking the plea that the concerned acknowledgment documents could not be traced despite all reasonable efforts made by the department.
17. More so, in the additional affidavit dated 04.10.2024, it has been alleged by the applicant that the signature of the applicant on the acknowledgment slip filed by the respondents is forged. It is also stated by the applicant that he came to know about fraudulent act of the respondents when he was not promoted to the post of CMO and after which he made representations to the respondents on 05.05.2022 and 23.08.2022 in which they stated that the APAR for the year 2011-2012, the applicant's grading was '5' i.e. "Good". The applicant has submitted that his signature needs to be verified through his signature which he has put in the department on various occasions. It has been reiterated that the APAR for the year 2011-12 was never provided to the applicant.
18. Our attention is drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Wheels India vs. Nirmal Singh and Ors. in FAO (OS) No.1 of 2010 held that the plaintiff, therefore, has disentitled itself to the equitable relief of injunction on account of deliberate suppression of material facts in the plaint as well as suppression of documentary evidence from the scrutiny of this Court. Concealment of material facts or documents deserves to be seriously viewed, for one who comes to the Court owes a duty to the Court to disclose all facts and documents to the Court. Our attention is also drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (10) LRs. v. Jagananath (Dead) by LRs and Ors reported as AIR (1994) SC 853 held that "even the suit could have been thrown out on the ground of such concealment of facts. The parties which choose to approach the Court with untruths or half-baked truths must be dealt with firmly and discouraged such course of action.
19. It is also contended that the inability to trace the said document is primarily due to the long passage of time and the fact that several officials have been transferred or have superannuated in the intervening period since 2012. Consequently, the continuity and custody of certain order records have been affected. However, it is beyond comprehension as to the photocopy of the acknowledgment containing names of 61 and 7 doctors respectively was submitted before the Tribunal if the original copy itself cannot be traced. We also find that there is no reference to any warning letter or memo issued to the applicant at any time during the relevant period counseling him to improve his work. In fact, even the counter affidavit does not refer to any such warning or memo issued to the applicant. The nature of adverse remarks mentioned in the APAR of the applicant make it impossible to make any effective representation as there is no reference to any particular incident or occasion inviting such remarks. However, the central point that in absence of communication of the impugned APAR 20-11-12, the applicant was deprived of the opportunity to put forward his case by way of representation. In UP Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain (1996) 2 SCC 363, the Supreme Court held:
"As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like falling from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are a positive grading. All what is required by the Authority recording confidentials in the situation is to record reasons for such down grading on the personal file of the officer concerned, and inform him of the change in the form of an advice. If the variation warranted be not permissible, then the very purpose of writing annual confidential reports would be frustrated. Having achieved an optimum level the employee on his part may slacken in his work, relaxing secure by his one time achievement. This would be an undesirable situation. All the same the sting of adverseness must, in all events, be not reflected in such variations, as otherwise they shall be communicated as such. It may be emphasized that even a positive confidential entry in a given case can previously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be qualitatively damaging may not be true. In the instant case we have seen the service record of the first respondent. No reason for the change is mentioned. The down grading is reflected by comparison. This cannot sustain. Having explained in this manner the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam, we do not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court.
KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (11) In Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati (1995) 5 SCC 103 the legal position was explained as under:
"6. It is settled law that when the Government resorts to compulsorily retire a Government servant, the entire record of service, particularly, in the last period of service required to be closely scrutinised and the power would be reasonably exercised. In State Bank of India etc. v. Kashinath Kher & Ors. etc. [JT 1996 (2) SC 569 at 578 para 15], this Court has held that the controlling officer while writing confidential and character role report, he should be a superior officer higher above the cadres of the officer whose confidential reports are written. Such officer should show objectivity, impartiality and fair assessment without any prejudice whatsoever with highest sense of responsibility to inculcate in the officer's devotion to duty, honesty and integrity so as to improve excellence of the individual officer. Lest the officers get demoralised which would be deleterious to the efficacy and efficiency of public service. In that case it was pointed out that confidential reports written and submitted by the Officer of the same cadre and adopted without any independent scrutiny and assessment by the committee was held to be illegal. In this case, the power exercised is illegal and it is not expected of from that high responsible officer who made the remarks. When an officer makes the remarks he must eschew of making vague remarks causing jeopardy to the service of the subordinate officer. He must bestow careful attention to collect all correct and truthful information and give necessary particulars when he seeks to make adverse remarks against the subordinate officer whose career prospect and service were in jeopardy. In this case, the controlling officer has not used due diligence in making remarks. It would be salutary that the controlling officer before writing adverse remarks would give prior sufficient opportunity in writing by informing him of the deficiency he noticed for improvement. In spite of the opportunity given if the officer/employee does not improve then it would be an obvious fact and would form material basis in support of the adverse remarks. It should also be mentioned that he had given prior opportunity in waiting for improvement and yet was not availed of so that it would form part of the record. The power exercised by the controlling officer is per se illegal. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter in dismissing the petition. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with all consequential benefits. The appeal is accordingly allowed with exemplary costs quantified at Rs. 10,000/- recoverable by the State from the officer who made the remarks."
20. Reverting to the case on hand, it is significant that barring one year which is 2011-12 wherein the applicant was graded "Good" his gradings in all the requisite years have been "Very Good". In other words barring 2011-12 the entries in the applicant's APAR have been above the benchmark. Also the fact remains that the adverse remarks in the APAR were not communicated to the applicant in time. The applicant could not have anticipated that his grading would be below the benchmark. It is only after the decision communicated to him based on his representation that he became aware that the grading for the year 2011-12 was below benchmark. The case has assumed more complexity in view of the controversy about the photocopy of acknowledgment KEDA KEDAR RAM R 2025.12.19 14:54:58 RAM +05'30' (OA No.25-2023) (12) receipt wherein the applicant has alleged that his signature has been forged and the respondents have failed to produce the original record.
21. We have to arrive at a just decision on whether a preliminary inquiry is warranted in the factual circumstances of the present case. It has already been noted that the relevant records are not traceable. As a result, there are no substantial documents presently available that would justify the initiation of an inquiry into the alleged forgery. But the difficulties, if any, arising from the loss of documents and the consequences of the passage of time cannot be prejudiced against the applicant. In addition, the theory of preponderance of probability also leans in favor of the applicant, thereby supporting his contention. In view of the above, we are of the view that corrective measures shall be considered by the respondents on the merits of the applicant's case.
22. In view of the above discussions, we quash and set aside the decision of the respondents to deny promotion to the applicant twice on the basis of the impugned APAR for the year 2011-2012. Accordingly, the DPC proceedings denying promotion to the applicant to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) dated 07.09.2021 and 21.01.2022 are set aside. The case of the applicant for promotion as on the date on which his juniors were promoted is directed to be considered afresh by convening a review DPC, excluding the below par APAR of 2011-12 and taking into account the remaining APARs for 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The competent authority shall undertake this exercise and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the applicant is otherwise found fit and eligible under the applicable recruitment rules, he shall be accorded promotion and seniority from the date of his juniors, on notional basis. The applicant shall be entitled to actual arrears limited to three years preceding the date of filing of the present Original Application in terms of law laid down in Union of India vs. Tersem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648.
23. The O.A. is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(Sanjeeva Kumar) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/kdr/
KEDA KEDAR
RAM
R 2025.12.19
14:54:58
RAM +05'30'