Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: below benchmark grading in Y.P. Mittal vs Government Of India Through on 26 September, 2014Matching Fragments
The instant OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, 1985 assails the order dated 04.11.2010 rejecting the applicants representation dated 01.07.2010 for upgradation of his below benchmark grading Good/ Average in respect of the period from 04.05.2001 to 31.03.2002; 02.05.2002 to 31.03.2003; 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004; 20.08.2004 to 31.03.2005 and 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006. 2. The applicant has prayed for the following main relief(s), by means of this OA:-
To quash and set aside impugned order contained No.7/36(ii)/2010-CM&V/851 dated 04.11.2010 of the Ministry;
5. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit rebutting the points raised in the OA. The learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the arguments assailed the averments made by the applicant as being incorrect factually and on ground of law. The respondent submits that the DPC was held on 01.07.2011 and prior to that, the below benchmark gradings in ACRs under reference were communicated to the applicant, vide OM dated 17.06.2010 (page 131 of the paper book). The respondent further submits that prior to the period 2008-09, as per the existing instructions, only adverse ACRs were required to be communicated along with a mention of good points and qualities. It was only after the judgment in the case of Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Others (supra) that the OM dated 13.04.2010 came to be issued. Under this OM, the below benchmark ACRs were required to be communicated prospectively. However, where an employee is to be considered for the next promotion in a future DPC, his below benchmark ACRs, prior to the period 2008-09, were also to be communicated to the concerned employee by giving him an opportunity to represent. As there was no provision for communicating the below benchmark gradings in the ACRs to the concerned individual employee, the contentious ACRs under reference for about four years were communicated to the applicant, vide OM dated 17.06.2010 for considering him for grant of NFU as per the rules. The respondent further submits that the applicant submitted a single representation in respect of all the ACRs dated 01.07.2010, which was duly considered by the competent authority and the ACRs of the applicant were upgraded, wherever found deserving. The respondent has alleged that the applicant has deliberately not brought these facts on record. The parts of the ACRs of the applicant, which could not be upgraded for one reason or the other, were communicated to him, vide the impugned order dated 04.11.2010. The name of the applicant along with all other eligible candidates as per NFU rules was considered by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 01.07.2011 but he was not found fit to be granted the NFU. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the applicant that he could have been granted the NFU. The respondent has relied upon a decided case of this Tribunal in the case of Dr. Vijendra Singh & Others versus The Chairman, Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board & Others (OA Nos.1570/2006 and 495/2007 decided on 29.04.2008.
6. The only issue required to be adjudicated by us is as to whether the ACRs have been communicated as per the requirements of OM dated 13.04.2010 or there is any infringement of the OMs dated 30.01.1978 or of 13.04.2010 or of the pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court in the two afore mentioned cases.
7. It is a well admitted fact that prior to the year 2008-09, the practice of communication of below benchmark gradings in the ACR did not exist under the Government instructions/guidelines. In this regard, the relevant portion of the OM dated 30.01.1978 is extracted hereinbelow:-
43. In Secretary, Department of Home Secretariat, A.P. & others v. B. Chinnam Naidu, 2005 SCC (L&S) 323, as to the desirability of a person to be appointed in Government service it is ruled that whether a person is fit to be appointed or not, it is a matter within the special domain of the Government.
11. Having considered the submissions made and the material placed on record, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the applicants representation for upgradation of his below benchmark grading, nor we have noticed any infringement of the OMs dated 30.01.1978 or 30.04.2010, and, therefore, this Application is bereft of merit.