Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The applicant is working as Superintending Geologist, in Geological Survey of India, Bhubaneswar. According to him, he was awarded grading of 7.06 in his APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013; which grading was downgraded to 5.62 by the Reviewing Authority and accepted by the Accepting Authority. As against such downgradation, he submitted representation on 20.09.2013, which was rejected on 09.12.2013. His juniors were promoted to the post of Director (Geology) on non-functional basis w.e.f. 01.04.2016 vide notification dated 14.11.2017 but, he was denied such promotion. He submitted representation on 05.12.2017 praying for increasing his grading in the APAR for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 atleast to 6.00 and consideration of his promotion to Director (Geology). In letter dated 18.12.2017, he received information under RTI Act, 2005 that his non- promotion to the said grade was due to below Benchmark grading in his APAR from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 [2012-13]. RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' Since, no decision was communicated to him on his representation dated 05.12.2017, he approached this Bench in OA No. 27/2018, which was disposed of on 19.01.2018 with direction for consideration and disposal of his pending representation. The respondents considered and rejected his representation vide letter dated 18.04.2018 mainly on the ground that in terms of the DoP&T OM No. 21011/1/2005- Estt.(A)(Pt.II) dated 14.05.2009, the officer/official concerned shall have to be given opportunity by giving copy of the APAR to make any representation against the entries and final grading given in the report within a period of 15 days of receipt of the APAR. Accordingly, applicant was furnished copy of the APAR for the period 2012-13 and, he submitted representation within a period of 15 days, which was considered, rejected and intimated to the applicant in letter dated 09.12.2013. Thereafter, the applicant kept silent and did not make any such memorial within the stipulated period of six months provided in D.P & A.R., O.M. No. 21011/1/77-Estt., dated 30.01.1978 and, thus, the representation, which he had submitted on 05.12.2017 being RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' time barred did not warrant any action. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA on 11.05.2018 praying the relief as under:

4. Admittedly, the below Benchmark grading of the applicant is for the period 2012-13. In terms of the provisions, preceding five years APARs were to be taken into consideration for considering promotion to the post of Superintending Geologist. The UPSC taken the decision that officer attaining atleast four Benchmark grading, out of five ACARs gradings, should be assessed fit for the post of Superintending Geologist. Accordingly, notwithstanding the below Benchmark grading for the period 2012-13, since the applicant was having four Benchmark gratings in his APARs, he was promoted to the post of Superintending Geologist against the vacancy year 2014-15. The Benchmark is "Very Good". The promotion to the post of Director (Geology) was against the vacancy year 2016-17. In terms of the DoP&T OM No. 22038/1/2015-Estt.(D) dated 25.06.2015, preceding five years gradings in APARs are made absolute for such promotion. Since, the grading of the applicant in his APARs for 2012-13 was "Good", he was not found fit for promotion to RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' Director (Geology) under NFSG against the vacancy year 2016-

17. Thus, this Bench are at a loss to know as to how injustice was caused to the applicant in the decision making process of the matter in promoting his juniors, who were declared fit by the selection committee based on the Benchmark gradings in preceding five years APARs, in absence of any such specific pleadings that anyone junior to him has been promoted despite not having five Benchmark APARs.

5. Admittedly, the APAR grading for the year 2012-13 was communicated to the applicant and he also submitted representation within the stipulated time, i.e. 15 days, which was considered and rejected by the respondents in letter dated 09.12.2013. The applicant remained satisfied with the order of rejection and did not avail any further opportunity available to him within the stipulated time of six months as per the rules. However, he woke up from the slumber only when he was debarred for promotion while promoting his juniors vide order dated 24.11.2017 by way of making representation on 05.12.2017 for increasing his grading in the APAR of 2012-13 RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' thereby considering his promotion to Director (Geology) under NFSG. Thereafter, he approached this Bench in OA No. 27/2018 and this Bench without expressing any opinion on merit of the matter and that of on his representation dated 05.12.2017 disposed of the OA on 19.01.2018 with direction to Resp. Nos. 1 and 2 to consider his representation. The respondents considered but rejected the representation vide order dated 17.04.2018 by stating that the representation submitted by the applicant long after the six months provided under the rules merits no consideration. The said order has been sought to be quashed by the applicant without challenging the earlier order of rejection dated 09.12.2013. Thus, now the question arises for adjudication as to whether the consideration and rejection of his representation dated 05.12.2017 by the order of the Bench vide order dated 17.04.2018 gives a fresh cause of action to the applicant to revive the stale/dead claim, which was set at rest by the order dated 09.12.2013 after the rejection of his representation against APAR, which was not challenged earlier. In this regard, it is profitable to place reliance on the decision of RAVI KUMAR 2026.05.08 16:38:27 +05'30' the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, wherein law was declared in the following terms: