ORDER :

The petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition filed by him against the order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") declining his prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to convene review DPC for reconsideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade of Indian Defence Accounts Service (for short, "the Senior Administrative Grade") against the vacancies of 2003. The petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of 928 days’ delay in filing of the special leave petition.

2. The petitioner joined service in Indian Defence Accounts Service in December, 1982. After completion of training, he was posted as Assistant Controller of Defence Accounts in January, 1984. He was promoted as Deputy CDA w.e.f. 15.12.1986. In 1989, he was sent on deputation in the Ministry of Defence as Assistant Financial Adviser. He was promoted as Deputy Financial Adviser in November, 1991 and as Joint Controller of Defence Accounts in December, 1992.

3. In the DPC held on 2.6.2003, the petitioner’s case was considered for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but he was not found suitable. The recommendations of the DPC were approved by the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) some time in December, 2003. Thereafter, some of the officers junior to the petitioner were promoted to Senior Administrative Grade. After almost two years of his supersession, the petitioner made representation dated 26.10.2005, which was followed by another representation dated 7.12.2005 for reconsideration of his case for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade but the same do not appear to have been accepted by the competent authority. His case was considered in the DPC held on 22.3.2006 for promotion against the vacancies of the year 2006 and on being found suitable, he was promoted vide order dated 10.5.2006.

4. Soon after his promotion, the petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"), which came to be registered as O.A. No.1316 of 2006. The thrust of the petitioner’s case was that the ACC headed by the Prime Minister had overruled the recommendations of the DPC and ordered for his promotion but the decision of the ACC was not implemented by the Ministry of Defence and persons junior to him were promoted.

5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it was categorically averred that the petitioner’s name was not recommended for promotion because the DPC did not grade him fit for promotion and the recommendations of the DPC were approved by the ACC. It was also averred that the DPC has assessed the overall suitability of the candidates and then made recommendations for the promotion.

6. The Tribunal, after going through the records produced by the respondents, recorded a finding that the ACC had not disapproved the recommendations of the DPC and held that the petitioner’s grievance in the matter of non-promotion was untenable because he was found unfit.

7. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by taking cognizance of the fact that the DPC had found him unfit for promotion. The High Court opined that the award of a grading which is below the benchmark cannot be treated as an adverse remark requiring communication.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 and order dated 22.10.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.6227 of 2008 Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others and argued that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as of right because he had earned very good reports for the period under consideration i.e. 1996-97 to 2000-2001.

9. In our view, there is no merit in the petitioner’s challenge to the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court. Though it may appear repetitive, it needs to be emphasiz