Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9] Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the CAT in the impugned judgment and order has declared that the respondent was entitled to promotion and thereafter, directed the constitution of a review DPC in order to formally recommend the promotion of the respondent and thereafter grant him all consequential benefits including deemed pay and arrears. Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that in such matters the courts and tribunals can at the highest direct reconsideration but only rarely can courts and tribunals issue a mandamus to promote. For these reasons also, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that the impugned judgment and order warrants interference. 10] Mr. Masand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the DPC guidelines, the bench mark prescribed was 'very good'. Since, for the period preceding page 5 of 27 SKC WP-2167-02 five years, the respondent was assessed as 'very good' for each of the years, it is apparent that the respondent had met with the bench mark. In such circumstances, the DPC, had no right or authority to evolve some other procedure, so as to deny promotion to the respondent. The criteria of marks evolved by the DPC was ex facie illegal and arbitrary and was therefore correctly set aside by the CAT. Mr. Masand submits that the CAT undoubtedly has jurisdiction to set aside the arbitrary and unreasonable criteria or method adopted by the DPC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference in these proceedings.

25] The CAT has ruled that the deviated procedure or criteria should have been made known to the candidates. Again, we are unable to agree with the CAT on this score as well. In the first place, as noted earlier, the method or procedure can hardly be styled as any deviation. In any case, when the guidelines themselves provide that the DPC or the DSC can evolve its own procedure or methods, then, in a matter of this nature, there is no question of insisting upon prior disclosure. It is too far fetched to indicate if the candidates were to know that their gradings would be marked, they might have discharged their duties more efficiently. In any case, the DPC or the DSC has in fact taken page 16 of 27 SKC WP-2167-02 into consideration the gradings of the candidates / officers but as a matter of convenience, assigned to such gradings marks so that there is greater objectivity and transparency in the entire process. In such circumstances, there was no warrant for the CAT to interfere with the procedure and the method adopted by the DPC or the DSC, which as noted earlier, comprised Chairman Railway Board, Secretary DOP&T and the Member of the Railway Board. 26] In the present case, taking into consideration the nature of the post of PHOD and the stringent procedures provided for determining merit and making appointments, it is apparent that the candidates who had secured the grading of 'outstanding' were ranked en bloc senior to the candidates who, may have secured the grading of 'very good'. This is in terms of the letter and the OM upon which the respondent had himself placed reliance. Therefore, it is not as if this was a case where the moment a candidate secures the bench mark 'very good' he or she was entitled to be promoted or selected for appointment on the basis of seniority in the feeder cadre. Since, the respondent, had been graded as 'very good' for preceding 5 years, at the page 17 of 27 SKC WP-2167-02 highest, the respondent could have claimed a grading of 'very good' before the DPC. Candidate who was selected however, had at least 2 'outstanding' and 3 'very good' gradings in the preceding 5 years. In such a situation, there was nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the DPC grading such officer / candidate as 'outstanding', though, by awarding him 22 marks as against the 20 marks secured by the respondent. Instead of grading the selected candidate / officer as 'outstanding', all that the DPC or the DSC has done is to assess his grading and award him 22 marks as against 20 marks awarded to the respondent. Again, there is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable in the method or procedure evolved by the DPC or the DCS so as to warrant interference in exercise of powers of judicial review. 27] In Anil Katiyar vs. Union of India & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that having regard to the confidential procedure which is followed by the Union Public Service Commission, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the DPC in grading the appellant as 'very good' instead of 'outstanding' was arbitrary. No ground is therefore made out for interference with the selection of the 1 (1997) 1 SCC 280 page 18 of 27 SKC WP-2167-02 respondent no. 4 by the DPC on the basis of which he had been appointed as Deputy Government Advocate. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not approve the approach of the CAT in scrutinizing and ultimately interfering with the method and procedure adopted by the DPC in the matter of selection to the post of Deputy Government Advocate.