[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8277/2022

1. Union of India, through Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi (India).

2. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Snachar Bhawan, Saradar Patel Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-

Scheme, Jaipur (Raj).

3. General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Near ASI Hospital, Jhalawar Road, Kota (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus Noor Ahmed S/o Shri Noor Mohd., Aged About 67 Years, Resident of Plot No. 02, Behind Akashwani Colony, Kota (Raj.)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma with Mr. Vaibhav Jhankra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori through VC Mr. Santosh Chaudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Judgment

Per Hon’ble Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The instant writ petition filed by the Union of India through the Chairman - BSNL against the judgment and order dated 03.12.2021 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No.102/2013, whereby, the O.A. filed by the respondent-applicant (hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’ for short) was allowed.

2. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent - Noor Ahmed had filed an O.A. before the learned Tribunal with the following prayer:-

“i) That the illegal order dated 28.12.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside and direction may be issued to respondent to correct the ACR's of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 as per the guidelines issued by the DOPT.

ii) That the respondents may be directed to hold review DPC in respect of applicant and consider his case for upgradation/promotion on the post of Senior SDE by ignoring the entries entered by the reviewing authority as the same is in violation of guidelines issued by the DOPT and BSNL.

iii) That the pay of the applicant may kindly be fixed in the scale of Senior SDE w.e.f from the date when other persons were given promotion and accordingly revised the pension and payment of arrears also.

(iv) That any other beneficial orders directions which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be kindly passed in favour of the applicant.

(iii) Costs be quantified in favour of the applicant.”

3. Learned Counsel further submitted that the case as set up by the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that he was eligible and entitled to promotion from the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SDE’ for short) to Senior SDE. However, he was not considered for promotion. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent stated in his O.A. that he had a good service record as reflected in his ACRs for the respective years, yet he was denied consideration for promotion to the aforesaid post on the basis of the uncommunicated ACRs for the respective period. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent filed the O.A. in the year 2013, whereas, he had already retired from the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2005. Thus, after a lapse of about 7–8 years from the date of his retirement, he filed the instant O.A., stating that his case was finally considered in the DPC, held on 27.11.2009 against the previous year’s vacancy, and wherein he was denied promotion on the ground that, out of 5 years’ required ACRs, he was having more than two ACRs as “Average”, and was, therefore not found fit for promotion as per Rules.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the respondent was properly considered by the humble petitioners. As the respondent was not having the required ACRs, he was rightly not considered for the said promotion. Learned counsel further submitted that though the respondent retired in the year 2005, he chose to file the O.A. in the year 2013, seeking promotion pertaining to the vacancy years when he was in service and the meeting of DPCs were