Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1389
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
J. S Gaur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9971 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Mr. Aman Mudgal, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Mr. Ravindra Vikram, Ms. Shubhra Parashar and Mr. Pushpender Singh Charak, Advocates, for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Rajappa and Mr. R. Gowrishankar, Advocates, for the Respondent.
The conclusion drawn by the DPC on the petitioner's eligibility for the selection grade could not undergo a change if the gradings in the ACRs were not upgraded.
Headnote:
Communication of ACRs - Challenge to rejection of representation - The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's challenge to the communication of adverse gradings in the ACRs, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. The court found that the representation having been dismissed and the gradings not being upgraded, the conclusion drawn by the DPC on the petitioner's eligibility for the selection grade could not undergo a change.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation against adverse gradings in his ACRs for the years 2001-02 to 2005-06, which were communicated after the DPC had held on his eligibility for the selection grade.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's challenge, stating that the gradings in the ACRs were not upgraded and the DPC had rightly found the petitioner not fit for the selection grade.
Issues: Challenge to rejection of representation against adverse gradings in ACRs
Ratio Decidendi: The representation having been dismissed and the gradings not being upgraded, the conclusion drawn by the DPC on the petitioner's eligibility for the selection grade could not undergo a change.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the rejection of his representation against adverse gradings in the ACRs.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 38442/2023 (Exmp.)
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 9971/2023
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated May 16, 2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short "Tribunal") in O.A. 1024/2015, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the O.A. filed by the petitioner.
2. The challenge of the petitioner in the O.A. was to a communication dated November 14, 2014, whereby his representation against certain grading in his ACRs for the years 2001-02 to 2005-06, was rejected by stating as under:
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan
Regional Office
KV AFS Campus, Sector 14, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001
No.F.32050/Sel. Scale/Admn/KVS/Gurgaon 10460
Dated: 14.11.2014
The Joint Commissioner (Admn)
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (HQ)
New Delhi.
Subject: Grant of Selection Sale to Shri J.S. Gaur, TGT (WE) KV Narela
Sir,
I am to refer to your letter No.F.11058-2/TGT/2009/KVS (HQ)/RPS/1532 dated 24.07.2014 on the subject cited above and to inform that ACRs for the year 2001-2002 to 2005-06 were communicated to Shri J.S. Gaur, TGT (WE), KV, Narela, vide this office memorandum No.F.32085/Admn/2014-154/KVS/GGN/5435 dated 12.08.2014.
In response to memorandum dated 12.08.2014 referred above, Shri J.G. Gaur has sent his representation dated 26.08.2014 against the adverse remarks through Principal, KV, Narela, vide letter No.F.23/KVN/2014-15/176 dated 20.08.2015 (copy enclosed).
After consideration of his representation and ACRs for the period from 2001-02 to 2005-06 by the competent authority, it has been observed that the abovesaid ACRs may be treated as average.
This is for your information and further necessary action, please.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
(C. MANI)
Deputy Commissioner
Copy to:
Shri R.S. Gaur, WBT, KV, Narela, for information."
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., 2008(8) SCC 725 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India & Ors., 2010(1) SCC (L&S) 959, the ACRs being adverse/below bench mark, having not been communicated, could not have been considered by the DPC, which held on October 01, 2012 for grant of selection grade to the petitioner w.e.f. March 14, 2007.
4. It may be stated here that immediately thereafter the petitioner did make a representation to the respondents about the factum that the ACRs of the aforesaid period, were not communicated to him. Accordingly, the ACRs were communicated to the petitioner and was called upon to represent against the same.
5. The petitioner has represented against the ACRs vide a letter dated June 30, 2014. The representation was rejected vide the impugned order dated November 14, 2014.
6. We have seen the Original Application filed by the petitioner, wherein he does not really challenge the gradings in the ACRs except stating in para 5.2 that the same are perverse. Mere saying perverse shall not mean that the gradings have not been properly given. No factual foundation has been laid in support of that ground.
7. In any case, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the O.A. inasmuch as the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt's case (supra), has clearly held in para 44 as under:
"44. We, therefore, direct that the "good" entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months thereafter and the said representation will be decided within two months f thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum
