Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: APAR Grading in G B Devikar vs M/O Atomic Energy on 13 March, 2018Matching Fragments
d) pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interests of justice or otherwise the applicant will be put to irreparable loss and injury."3
2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was initially recruited as Sub-Officer -A on 25.05.1993 and subsequently promoted to the higher grade of Sub- Officer-B with effect from 01.08.2000 and Sub-Officer-C with effect from 01.08.2005. The post of Sub-Officer in Fire services in the respondent department is categorized as Technical and the recruitment/promotion of Scientific and Technical staff are governed by the Merit Promotion Scheme of the Department of Atomic Energy and are delinked from the availability of vacancies. The promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme is granted on the basis of merit and performance of the individual officer during the prescribed residency period in the lower grade. The fitness for promotion under the Merit Promotion Scheme is assessed on the basis of the APAR grading of the employee, during the prescribed eligibility period, his domain knowledge, his record of work and performance in interview etc. In the case of SC/ST employees, relaxation is granted for APAR gradings.
4. It is the contention of the applicant that for promotion from the post of Sub- Officer-C to Sub-Officer-D, the APAR gradings pertaining to four annual reports immediately preceding the date of the promotion proposal had to be taken into consideration. The guidelines for promotion of Sub-Officer without Station Officer's Certificate stipulate minimum eligibility period of six years with four A-1 grading, 7 years with four A-2 grading, 8 years with four A-3 grading and 9 years with four B+ grading. The six years APAR gradings from 2005-06 to 2010-11, should have been considered for the promotion year 2010-11. Further, since he is having Station Officer Certificate, he could also be promoted from 01.07.2010. Further, persons, who have shown distinguished performance, can be awarded promotions by relaxing the standards and awarding highest grade of A+. Hence, it is contended by him that he should been promoted with effect from 01.07.2010, for his professional performance in a Fire accident at ECIL, Hyderabad, on 19.06.2009.
11. The respondents have filed an additional reply stating that there is no post based roster reservation in merit promotions in the Department of Atomic Energy and that there is relaxation in APAR gradings for SC/ST employees in one step below in comparison with the general candidates in promotion cases.
12. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the record.
13. The learned counsel for the Applicant has produced a letter written by one Chief Administrative Officer & Liaison Officer for SC/STs, which states that the applicant deserves to be promoted to the grade of Station Officer with effect from July, 2007 onwards and that he should have been promoted to the grade of Sub-Officer-D in 2011 because he was fulfilling the norms of the post. Further, his CR grading from 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 was A2 (Very Good) and 2010-11 was A1 (Outstanding). As per the existing norms for Sub-Officer-C to Sub-Officer-D, one should have a residency period of 6 years in the grade of Sub-Officer-C and two A1+ two A2 APAR gradings.
14. The issues that fall for consideration are -
i. Whether the applicant has a case for promotion as Sub-Officer-D with effect from 1.7.2010 by revising his CR as A+ by taking into consideration the letter of appreciation and Certificate of Recognition given in 2009-10. ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of the policy of reservation in promotions.
15. From the material on record, it is seen that the applicant has admittedly received and acknowledged his ACR forms for the period from 1.7.2009 to 30.6.2010 and has filed the same as Annexure.A-17. The applicant has been graded as A2/Very Good. The assessment of the Reporting Officer has been endorsed by the Deputy Chief Executive and also by the Chief Executive. His contention that he ought to have been given A1 grading for his performance during 2009-10 should have been represented to the competent authority by filing an appeal within the stipulated time against the general remarks/grading against the individual attributes/the final grading. The applicant has not produced any material to show that he has filed any appeal against the grading given to him in 2009-10. Therefore, it has to be held that the applicant has not filed any such appeal and has approached this Tribunal after a lapse of 5 years praying for a direction to the respondents to upgrade his APAR grading for the year 2009-10 based on a letter of appreciation and certificate of recognition. Without filing any appeal at the relevant time, there is no justification for considering the prayer for upgradation of his ACR grading for 2009-10. Further, merely on the basis of a letter of appreciation, the applicant is not justified in seeking revision of his ACR grading to A1. Thus, the applicant has failed to establish any justification for his prayer to promote him to the grade of Sub-Officer-D with effect from 1.7.2010 by revising his CR/APAR grading as A+.