G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 06.05.2015 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) by which OA No. 1303/2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner was a Member of Indian Forest Service (Group-A) allocated to UT cadre in the year 1979 in ‘Junior Time Scale’ (JTS). He earned promotions in ‘Senior Time Scale’ (STC) and ‘Junior Administrative Grade’ (JAG) in the years 1983 and 1988, respectively. The petitioner joined the respondent in the year 1988 on deputation and was further appointed as ‘Deputy Secretary’ in the year 1989. Subsequently, the petitioner was absorbed in Research Analysis Services (in short ‘RAS’) being the Senior Executive Cadre of Research and Analysis Wing (hereinafter referred to as ‘RAW’) in 1989 by maintaining his original seniority of the year 1979. He was further promoted as ‘Director’ and ‘Joint Secretary’ in the years 1999 and 2004 respectively and became eligible for promotion to the next higher grade being ‘Additional Secretary’ as per the existing notified recruitment rules. However, as per the petitioner the respondents held a DPC and considered his name for promotion to the post of ‘Additional Secretary’, but he was not promoted to the said post. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 01.08.2011 contending that he should have been promoted to the post of Additional Secretary as he fully met the benchmark/eligibility criteria, which is ‘Very Good”, for the preceding five years. The respondents, in response to the said representation, intimated the petitioner, vide Note dated 18.08.2011, that his promotion from the rank of Joint Secretary to the rank of Additional Secretary had not been approved by the competent authority for want of meeting the prescribed benchmark laid down for the post in question. The petitioner was additionally informed that the highlights of the Scheme of Promotion and In situ Upgradation at the level of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary and Special Secretary in RAW (hereinafter ‘In Situ Promotion Scheme’ and ‘DPC Guidelines’) had been notified by the Cabinet Secretariat vide Order dated 03.06.2008 and its contents had been suitably circulated to all the members of the Senior Executive Cadres posted at Headquarters and at various other stations within and outside the country. Similarly, a copy of Research & Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre & Service) Rules, 1975 [RAW (RC&S) Rules, 1975], as updated, had also been circulated to all the Heads of Zones.

3. As per the In Situ Promotion Scheme, the annual ACRs for the past 10 years were to be seen and every grade was assigned particular marks in the following manner:

Grade	Marks
Outstanding	5
Very Good	4
Good	3

For a candidate to be declared as “fit” for promotion, he must possess a minimum of 44 marks out of 50 was mandatory, in respect of the past ten years. This was termed as a ‘stricter screening standard’ as the “benchmark would be appreciably higher than the normal benchmark of ‘Very Good’.” As per the stricter standard, the petitioner herein was not eligible for the promotion. Being aggrieved by the laying of the new benchmark by the In Situ Promotion Scheme and the consequent denial of promotion, the petitioner herein approached the Tribunal by filing an OA, which has been dismissed and has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

4. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that issuance of any guideline with regard to the benchmark for promotion lies in the domain of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (hereinafter referred to as ‘ACC’), whereas in the present case the scheme has been approved by t