ORDER

Per: A. Mukhopadhaya, Member (A):

This Original Application, (OA), arises from the applicant not being promoted from the rank of Vice-Principal to that of Principal by the respondents.

(2)

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as per the applicant, are that he submitted a representation in 2011 for promotion from the post of Vice-Principal to that of Principal in the respondent organisation. This representation was rejected vide respondents’ letter dated 24.08.2011, (Annexure A/2), on the ground that his ACR gradings for the last five years being as follows, were below the benchmark required for promotion:-

“2006-07 Average 2007-08 Average 2008-09 Average 2009-10 Average

2010-11 Very Good”

This position was reiterated on his making further representation in this regard on 30.09.2011/18.10.2011 vide memorandum dated 28.11.2011; (Annexure A/3). This memorandum clarified that while the applicant’s representation for promotion was considered by the DPCs for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the DPC’s recommendation for the year 2009-10 was kept in sealed cover as a disciplinary case was pending against him, whereas for the next two years, i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12, the DPC did not find him fit for promotion as “he did not meet the prescribed benchmark as prescribed under the rules”. The respondents however, vide subsequent memorandum dated 22.08.2012, (Annexure A/4), advised the applicant to apply for (3)

review of his ACRs to the Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office, Jaipur who was the competent authority for this in terms of Article 91 of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas. At this, the applicant made a detailed representation dated 14.09.2012, (Annexure A/5), in which he stated that during the relevant period in question, his reporting officers, namely S/Shri G.S.Sethi, Vijay Bhatnagar and K.C.Jain gave him an unfair overall grading in his ACRs owing to corrupt and malafide reasons, (as detailed in his representation), and that the grading should now be reviewed and the promotion that he was seeking be given from the originally due date for this, i.e. with retrospective effect. This representation was also rejected vide memorandum dated 01.11.2012; (Annexure A/1). Aggrieved by this as well as the fact that the below benchmark gradings in his ACRs were not communicated to him in a timely manner, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the following relief:-

The O.A. be allowed and the impugned order dated 01.11.2012 be quashed and set aside. The respondents be directed to give promotion on the post of Principal to the applicant effective from due date when his juniors were promoted.

Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. In reply, the respondents state that the applicant’s ACR gradings for the years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were “Average” and that this was not communicated to the (4)

applicant as per rules and procedure in force at the time as average grading is not the same as an adverse remark. They further state that the applicant was provided his ACR gradings for the last five years, (2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11), vide respondents’ letter dated 24.08.2011, (Annexure A/2), and this enabled him to make a representation to the competent authority to consider his case for promotion to the post of Principal with retrospective effect. They aver that the applicant’s case was duly considered, as per rules and procedure applicable, by the DPCs for the years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 and confirm that while the DPC’s recommendation for the year 2009-10 was kept in sealed cover as a disciplinary case was pending against the applicant, he was found unfit for promotion by the DPC of the subsequent two years, (2010-11 and 2011-12), as he did not meet the prescribed benchmark as prescribed under the rules.

4. As regards the disciplinary proceedings visited upon the applicant, the respondents aver that the applicant had earlier been penali