dated 13th April 2010, which reads as under:
"Subject: Below Benchmark grading in ACRs prior to the
reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration ... adverse remarks and not the ACR containing the below benchmark
grading at the relevant time. This deprived the Petitioner of an opportunity
to seek
acceptable. On 4th August 2010, the petitioner was served with
below benchmark grading in Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the
years ... viewed from the requirement of respondents to
communicate below benchmark grading in the ACRs also irrespective of
them being not in fact adverse in common
contended by the Respondent that it was
mandatory for the below benchmark grading of „good‟, for the years that
ended in March 2001 and March ... gradings were „good‟, they were not
considered to be adverse. However, the fact remains that the „good‟ grading
was a below benchmark grading. While
respectively. 7 was below
the benchmark.
7. It is only on 28th July, 2010 that the below benchmark grading and the
ACR was first communicated ... representation by not actually dealing with the merits of his
below benchmark grading. The stand taken by them was that the grading in
his ACRs
applicant
as Unfit as he could not achieve the requisite benchmark grading in the
ACRs.
3. The applicant has submitted as under ... applicant 'UNFIT' as he could not achieve the
requisite benchmark grading in the ACRs. On the basis of the said
assessment the Committee
applicant
as Unfit as he could not achieve the requisite benchmark grading in the
ACRs.
3. The applicant has submitted as under ... applicant 'UNFIT' as he could not achieve the
requisite benchmark grading in the ACRs. On the basis of the said
assessment the Committee
above the benchmark is "Very Good". All
officers who have this benchmark are to be graded as fit for promotion. The
petitioners have ... provisions contained in the
relevant rules and guidelines about the benchmark grading were followed
in case of the petitioners but they were not recommended
Modified Assured Career
Progression, (MACP), Scheme due to "below benchmark
grading".
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant ... proceedings but that his APARs for
the relevant years showed below benchmark grading. Thus
notwithstanding the Screening Committee to review the cases
petitioner‟s overall grading to 5
out of 10, which is graded as „Good‟, which grading is below the
benchmark for his consideration for promotion ... grading of the Reporting Authority, he
should be graded as 7 out of 10 i.e. „Very Good‟, which is above the
benchmark for consideration
year 2002-03
and 2003-04 were having below benchmark grading. Considering them for
promotion in such a situation would have been violation ... year 2002-03 and 2003-04 for
upgrading their benchmark grading. However, no action has been taken on
their request. They have also quoted
