Mr. Darshan Singh, J.:- The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed by petitioner RITES Limited under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application No. 475-HR of 2010.

2. Respondent no. 2 was employed as casual Junior Engineer on 23.10.1982 after completion of diploma in Civil Engineering. Thereafter, he passed AIME equivalent to B.E/B. Tech in 1991. He also passed MBA with specialization in Operations Management from IGNOU. He was appointed as Technical Assistant on 22.10.1983. Thereafter, he was designated as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 01.03.1986 and on selection, he was promoted as Assistant Manager (Civil) w.e.f. 01.05.1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Manager (Civil) and then to the post of Deputy General Manager (for short D.G.M) w.e.f 09.03.1999. The next promotional post in the heirarchy was Joint General Manager (for short J.G.M). Respondent no. 2 became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of J.G.M in 2004 having completed 5 years of service as D.G.M. As per Promotion Policy & Rules (hereinafter called the Promotion Policy), respondent no.2 was considered for promotion alongwith 13 others, but he failed to qualify for selection for promotion as J.G.M, as he could not achieve the target to secure the minimum aggregate of 75 marks out of 100 as per Promotion Policy. He was again considered for promotion in the years 2005, 2007 and 2008, but could not secure the minimum required marks. Ultimately, he challenged the action of the petitioner in not promoting him in the aforesaid years before the Tribunal by moving the Original Application No. 475-HR-2010. The said application was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide impugned order dated 05.08.2011. Hence this petition.

3. Respondent no. 2 contested the present petition by controverting the pleas raised by the petitioner.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case meticulously.

5. Initiating the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the Promotion Policy the factors of assessment and evaluation criteria for being empanelled by Departmental Promotion Committee (for short D.P.C) were prescribed. The marks were to be awarded with respect to the educational qualification, grading in the Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACR’s) and interview. He contended that in order to secure promotion from the rank of D.G.M to the J.G.M, a candidate has to obtain 75 marks out of 100 marks. Respondent no. 2 obtained only 69 marks. So, he was not eligible for promotion to the rank of J.G.M. He contended that at the time of arguments before the learned Tribunal, respondent no. 2 has confined his claim only qua the promotion in the year 2004 and had given up the claim with respect to the remaining years.

6. He contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that respondent no. 2 shall be entitled to full marks for the A.C.R’s simply on the ground that those were not conveyed to him. He contended that there was no benchmark for the grading of the A.C.R’s. So, no prejudice has been caused to respondent no.2 due to non-communication of the said A.C.R’s. He further contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly observed that respondent no.2 should have been awarded full 10 marks for educational qualification as in the Promotion Policy it was specifically provided that a person having minimum education qualification shall be entitled for 8 marks. Only the persons having the additional/higher qualification shall be entitled to 10 marks and respondent no. 2 was rightly awarded 8 marks. He further contended that as per the gradings of his A.C.R’s, he was awarded 46 marks. The A.C.R’s of last 5 years was to be considered. Thus, he pleaded that