Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

24. In compliance of the judgments of Apex Court and that of the Tribunal the review DPC was held for the year 1987-88 to 1994-95. By this order the petitioners were promoted against the merit quota for the year 1991-92 and respondent Pramila Surana was given promotion against seniority quota for the year 1992-93.

25. Mr. Joshi further submits that in the earlier DPCs the error was committed by the Government because persons having five out of seven outstanding APARs were treated as meritorious while as per law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court the persons having seven out of seven outstanding APARs were to be treated as meritorious.

28. Mr. Joshi also pointed out the contradictions in the judgment of the Tribunal by reading Para 6 and 7 that APARs for the year 1984-85 1985-86 were filled by two different reporting officers whereas the Tribunal in para No. 6 of the judgment held that it was filled by the same officer. Thus, the judgment is based on factually incorrect premise.

29. Mr. Joshi further submits that the Tribunal has been the record of the respondent three times, which shows that her APAR for the year 1984-85 is above average and the second part of 1985-86 is good. Thus, she does not come within the category of meritorious as per law. And the Tribunal has committed serious error of law treating above average equivalent to very good ignoring the ratio decided in Govind Narain's case.

39. The order dated 10.2.1992 was challenged by Shri K.G. Agarwal vide his appeal No. 116/92 and the Tribunal while upholding appointment of this respondent in the promotion quota of 1991-92 arrived at the conclusion that APARs of 7 years of this respondent preceding 1991-92 were outstanding. The appeal was allowed so far as it related to Sarva Shri Chouthmal Khatri, Hemant Goswami, Doongardan Charan, M.S. Kala and Suraj Bhan Meena as the Tribunal found that the APARs of these persons for all the 7 years preceding the year 1991-92 were neither outstanding nor very good.

(1) Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1962 SC 1621.
(2) Hira Lal Loonkaransar Bikaner v. B.O.R., 2001(4) WLC (Raj.) 197.
(3) State of Raj. v. Smt. Usha Sahini and Anr., 1992 (2) WLC (Raj.) 579.
(4) AIR 1987 SC 1353(14).

58. The observation made by the Tribunal with regard to above average have also been carefully examined within the Tribunal has observed that the so far APARs are concerned there is not a shred of doubt that Smt. Surana has had a consistently meritorious record from 1981-82 to 1987-99 which is the relevant period for this appeal. In this period she has three outstanding APARs and four Above Average APARs which is considered very good. Thus, all the seven APARs are considered by the Tribunal in the meritorious category. The Tribunal also considered its earlier judgment in the case of KG Agarwal and found Smt. Surana's record as meritorious and in later decision of this Tribunal (Pramila Surana v. State of Rajasthan Appeal No. 138/96 this Tribunal perhaps fallen into error in holding that 'above average' cannot be equated with 'very good' and held that above average is at par with very good, and also referred certain portion of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of O.P. Shaharan v. State of Rajasthan Appeal No. 320/96 but has failed to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court has held that person having seven out of seven outstanding APARs were to be treated as meritorious.