Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

gradation of the ACRs made by the Secretary (Housing) is illegal. While making this Court peruse minutes of DPC, Mr. Sharma, argued that it has been clearly mentioned in the proceedings that DPC perused the entire record of ACRs and as such, recommendation made by it for promotion of respondent No.3 cannot be said to be not based upon proper appreciation of record. While referring to the office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Mr. Sharma, argued that .

(a) In A.K. Narula case (AIR 2007 SC 2296), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed:
"the guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to the DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in the CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs. The DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, malafide or arbitrariness, the selection calls for interference. Where the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by the DPC, the court will not interfere".
respondent No.1 that the entries for the period had an element of adverse reflection and for that purpose the seniority of respondent No.1 was downgraded and, therefore, the ACR ought to have been communicated to respondent No.1. In our opinion, the observations of the High Court are wholly unjustified inasmuch as the post of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise is a post required to be filled up on selection made strictly on the basis of merit. No judicial review of DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily conducted in accordance with the standing government instructions and Rules is warranted. The norms and procedure for DPC are prescribed in O.M. dated 10.4.1989. It is thus seen that the decision taken by the appellants has been as per the instructions issued on the subject that only adverse entries and remarks are to be communicated and there is no provision to communicate the downgrading of ACR to a government employee. The decision of the Central Government is in strict accordance with the prevailing rules and government instructions. In the absence of any violation, the impugned order of the High Court while undertaking a judicial review under Art.

Though Mr. Sharma while making this court peruse record of DPC strenuously argued that the entire record of ACRs was seen by the DPC, but such submission of him is not tenable being totally contrary to the record. DPC proceedings held on 9.8.2019 and 16.8.2019 (P-19 and P-20) clearly reveal that DPC appreciated the revised ACRs of Smt. Anjori Kapoor-

.

respondent No.3 and the petitioner, meaning thereby, at no point of time, DPC made an effort/endeavour to look into the ACRs of the relevant years so that it could see whether overall grading given by the competent authority while upgrading her from "good" to "very good" is in consonance with the grading under various parameters or attributes. Interestingly, DPC in its meeting held on 9.8.2019, recommended respondent No.3 for promotion as Executive Engineer from Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 16.6.2007 and subsequently on the basis of same, in its next meeting held on 16.8.2019, recommended respondent No.3 for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. Having carefully perused the record of DPC as has taken note herein above, this court is fully convinced and satisfied that DPC in slipshod manner, without perusing ACRs of the officers being considered for promotion for the relevant years proceeded to make recommendation merely on the basis of ACRs revised on the order of Additional Chief Secretary HIMUDA. Aforesaid conclusion drawn by this Court is further substantiated from the noting given by the Minister Incharge, P-26, who being dissatisfied with the decision of DPC ordered for revised DPC. Interestingly, this Court finds from the record that pursuant to orders passed by the Minister Incharge, Review DPC was to be conducted, however, in the case at hand, meeting of Review DPC came to .