Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA No. 2209/2023 This the 04^th day of December, 2025 Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member(A)

TEJPAL SINGH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O SH. NAUBAT SINGH R/O 39, GYAN KHAND-III INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH-201014 ..Applicant (By Advocates: Mr. R K Shukla)

Versus

1. GNCTD THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DELHI SECRETARIAT I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110001

2. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION OLD SECRETARIAT 5, SHAM NATH MARG CIVIL LINES DELHI-110054

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECRETARIAT), GNCTD SECRETARIAT, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT RECRUITMENT &

PROMOTION UNIT ROOM NO. 223, OLD SECRETARIAT 5, SHAM NATH MARG CIVIL LINES DELHI-110054 ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. G C Jha, Mr. Dhurendra Jha)

O R D E R(Oral)

Hon’ble Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member(J)

The applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the following reliefs:

“A. To set aside the impugned order dated 12.12.2022 and letter dated 31.08.2022, and to direct the respondents to consider his promotion treating him at par with his juniors, namely, Tek Chand and Digpal Singh, with all consequential benefits.

B. To direct the respondents to convene a review DPC for considering the applicant’s promotion on ad hoc basis treating him at par with his juniors, and to further direct the respondents to consider his promotion on regular basis from the date his juniors were promoted.

C. To pass any other or further orders which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper.”

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second round of litigation. Despite the earlier round, the applicant has not been informed of the reasons for his non-promotion from the post of Vice-

Principal to that of Principal.

3. Notices were issued and a reply has been filed by the respondents. However, even in the reply, no specific or detailed reasons have been furnished regarding the applicant‟s non-promotion.

4. Relying on the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant‟s candidature was considered by the DPC held on 10.12.2019, but he was declared „unfit‟ for promotion. The only reason indicated is that the applicant was allegedly named as an accused in FIR No. 377/2013. It is not disputed that the said FIR has already been quashed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. Beyond this, the reply does not disclose anything else.

5. During the pendency of the OA, this Tribunal had, in its proceedings dated 20.04.2025 and on 04.09.2025, directed the respondents to produce the DPC minutes. The DPC minutes have now been handed across the Bar. A perusal of the same indicates that while considering the applicant for ad hoc promotion to the post of Principal for the vacancy year 2020, the DPC assessed him against the prescribed benchmark of “Very Good” and recorded him as „unfit‟, indicating that he did not meet the benchmark.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was never communicated any below- benchmark ACRs for the relevant period, which disentitled him from meeting the prescribed benchmark. He places reliance on the decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725, wherein it has been held that any below-benchmark ACR that may affect an employee‟s chances of promotion must be communicated, failing which such ACRs cannot be used to the employee‟s detriment.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance on another decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Kr. Vs Union of India - Civil Appeal No. 888/2019 dated 21.01.2019. Relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“The failure communicate the ACRS deprived the appellant of the opportunity to submit his representation in financial upgradation Subsequently, appellant was furnished with an opportunity to submit his representation before his case was taken up for regular promotion, but his representation was not considered.

The appellant did n