Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. He stated that after his ACRs for the years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 were duly upgraded from Below Benchmark to Above Benchmark grading, the Review DPC should have been constituted to promote him to the rank of Commandant with seniority at par with his juniors i.e., w.e.f July 01, 2010. The petitioner's position in the Seniority list should have been restored back to the position as would have been in normal course of promotion.

15. On the other hand, Mr. Jivesh Kr. Tiwari, Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents stated that the petitioner was considered for promotion to the rank of Commandant by the DPC held on March 15, 2010 during the vacancy year 2010-11 but assessed as 'Unfit‟ for not meeting the required benchmark grade of „Very Good‟ due to his confidential record of service and DG's Displeasure. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated November 27, 2014 for his promotion to the rank of Commandant w.r.t. DPC held on March 15, 2010 which was examined in detail and was rejected by the Competent authority and the same was informed to him accordingly vide letter dated February 12, 2015.

16. He stated that, as per Para 3.3 of DoP&T OM dated February 08, 2002, the posts which are in the pay scale (grade) of Rs. 12,000- 16, 500 (Pre-revised) and above, the benchmark grade should be 'Very Good‟. Further, as per MHA instructions on the subject, an officer may be graded as „Very Good‟, if in the opinion of the Selection Committee his overall service record reflects that the officer has done highly meritorious work and possesses positive attributes and these characteristics are to be reflected in at least 3 of the last 5 ACRs. Further in the opinion of the Selection Committee, the remaining ACRs under consideration of the Committee should reflect that the officer's performance is generally good, during the period of report. There should be no adverse entry in any of the ACRs under consideration of the Selection Committee.

26. It may be stated here that the case of the petitioner was also considered for promotion from the post of 2IC to Commandant, but he was not found fit because of the below benchmark gradings for the years 2005-2006 and 2007-2008 of „Good‟ and „Average‟ respectively.

27. There is no dispute that, on a representation made by the petitioner, the below benchmark gradings were upgraded as „Very Good‟ and „Good‟ respectively. In fact, his case for promotion to the post of Commandant was also considered and he was granted promotion to the post of Commandant for the vacancy year 2011-2012.