Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. In order to adjudicate upon the issue before us, we required the proceedings of the DPC held on 30.10.2012, which have been placed before us by the respondents. We find from perusal of the DPC minutes that the APARs for a minimum period of three years should be available between the period 2006-07 and 2010-11.

6. The main grievance of the applicant is in context of one Lesley Jacob who, as per the applicant, did not have three years APARs during the period under consideration and despite that she has been selected subject to completion of APARs and certain other conditions, which is bad in law. Comparative chart of APARs relating to the applicant vis-`-vis Lesley Jacob is as under:-

Sl.No. Name 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 T.J. Geevarghese NA G VG VG VG Lesley Jacob NA NA VG NA NA From the above Chart, we note that APARs in respect of Lesley Jacob for the period 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2010-11 are not available. Therefore, we find that the DPC has committed a procedural lapse in the matter of selection of said Lesley Jacob with such records. As per the practice in vogue, where the APARs are not available, the option was there with the DPC to have gone back and considered the APARs which were available. However, the act of selection of said Lesley Jacob subject to fulfillment of certain conditions/APARs at a future date is against the methodology of the DPC. On the other hand, we find that the applicant has APARS available for the period 2007-08 to 2010-11 having been graded as Very Good except for the period 2007-08 as Good, but we are not aware whether it has been communicated or not as per the DOP&T OM dated 13.04.2010. In any case, the applicant has so many Very Good grades commensurate with the benchmark. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the DPC has committed a number of procedural irregularities. In the first place, there is no provision in the methodology given that a person would be selected subject to availability of APARs in future; in the second place, the applicant being a senior person, was having his APARs available, but it is not known as to on what basis he was found unfit as compared to Lesley Jacob, who was having only one APAR at the time of DPC. If at all the DPC wanted to adopt this mode of promotion that a person could have been selected despite not having required number of APARs for the purpose, this could have been mentioned in the methodology to be adopted by the DPC. We take note of the Rules structure that that there cannot be either any pick and choose or discrimination against any of the candidates. Looking at the APARs and service profiles of the two persons i.e. Lesley Jacob and the applicant, we find that the applicant definitely stands on a better footing if compared to said Lesley Jacob. This position has not been taken into account. We are further intrigued by the position that promotion has been given to said Lesley Jacob on the basis of the ACRs/APARs not before the DPC. We are of view that the DPC is guilty of disregarding the prescribed procedure, and, therefore, find substantial force in the argument of the applicant. We also find the proceedings of the DPC insofar as it relates to the applicant, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. We are conscious of the fact that as the said Lesley Jacob has not been impleaded as party respondent in the instant case, no order affecting her can be passed. However, we find that there is discrimination visible on face of it in relation to the applicant. Therefore, we allow the instant Original Application in the following terms:-