* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2757/2014 and CM No.5720/2014
SI (M) Arun Kumar Poddar ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
CM No. 5720/2014 Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
WP(C) No.2757/2014
1. By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner, who is serving as a Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to give effect to his promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) retrospectively from 27.09.1996 when his counterparts were promoted with all WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 1 of 6 consequential benefits including arrears of pay, security etc. for the intervening period.
2. The immediate reason why the Petitioner appears to have filed the present writ petition is that according to the Petitioner, the Petitioner‟s counterparts became Inspectors somewhere in the year 2010-11, but yet again the promotion of the Petitioner was withheld. The representation dated 24.07.2012 (dispatched on 09.08.2012) preferred by the Petitioner to the Director General, CRPF seeking a clarification for his non-promotion alongwith his counterparts was also rejected; and as per the Petitioner, the Petitioner came to know for the first time vide Signal No. P.VII-1/2012-Min. dated 16.10.2012 issued by the DIGP (Org), Directorate General in response to his representation that he had not been considered for promotion against the vacancies available in the year 1996-1997 for the post of S.I. (M) for the reason that on the basis of his ACRs for 8 years commencing from 1988-89 to 1995-96, relevant for the purpose of being considered in the DPC held for the vacancies of S.I. (M) for the year 1996-97, he had been assessed "unfit" by the DPC as he had failed to achieve the prescribed benchmark.
WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 2 of 6
3. The Petitioner‟s grievance is that the ACRs on the basis of which the DPC came to the conclusion that he had failed to achieve the prescribed benchmark were never communicated to the Petitioner prior to the aforesaid Signal.
4. The Petitioner, thus, contends that he was all along under the mistaken impression that he could not get promotion due to the punishment of censure awarded to him during 1993-94, as was conveyed to him at the relevant time by his superiors, and was unaware of the fact that he had been denied the benefit of promotion owing to his alleged failure to achieve the prescribed benchmark in his ACRs for the period 1989-90 to 1995-96. Thus the Office Order dated 09.09.2013 vide which the representation dated 02.01.2013 of the Petitioner was rejected by DIGP, CRPF is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the non- promotion of the Petitioner by the Respondents for the sole reason that there were four „Average‟ and one „Below Average‟ remarks in the ACRs of the Petitioner, which were taken into consideration for the purpose of his promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee held in the year 1996 for the vacancies in the year 1996- WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 3 of 6 97, could not be said to be justified in view of the fact that the said „Average‟ remarks were never communicated to the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily relies upon Instructions bearing No. R.9/Instn.CRC(Vol.XI) dated 10th May, 2001 on the subject "Supersession Due To „Average‟ Grading Given In Confidential Report".
7. The relevant part of the aforesaid Instructions reads as under:-
"According to instructions on ACRs, only adverse remarks recorded in the ACR, if any, are to be communicated to the Government servant. The grading in the ACR, even if „Average‟(which may not, make him eligible to achieve the prescribed bench mark for promotion), need not be communicated. However, an order was issued in 1994 by the Directorate General vide letter No. P.VII.3/94- Adm.3 dated 20.08.1994 that Officers who were graded as 'Average' in their ACR, should be advised suitably (without disclosing grading) to improve their performance. The intention behind the instructions was that the Govt. servant should be advised to improve his performance in the interest of his career."
8. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petition for the reason that what the Petitioner seeks to challenge is the „Average‟ grading for the years 1988-89 to 1995-96 and the present petition is, therefore, grossly WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 4 of 6 barred by delay and laches. The Petitioner was well aware of the fact that his counterparts had been selected for the post of Sub-Inspectors (M) for vacancies which fell due in the year 1996, but did not choose to challenge his supersession by the DPC at the relevant juncture. The only reason for his not doing so appears to us to be flimsy, being that he was under the mistaken impression that he could not get the promotion due to the punishment of „censure‟ awarded to him during the year 1993-94. We find from the record that the Petitioner was eventually promoted to the rank of SI (M) on 28.09.2005 and during this entire period, that is, from the year 1996 to 2005 and even thereafter till the year 2012, the Petitioner did not prefer any representation. It was only on 09.08.2012 that the Petitioner preferred a representation dated 24.07.2012 to the Director General, CRPF seeking a clarification/reasons for his non-promotion to the rank of Inspector alongwith his counterparts, and on his being intimated that his non-promotion was on account of his not meeting the prescribed benchmark has preferred the present petition.
9. It was imperative upon the Respondents to convey to the Petitioner the fact of his ACRs being „Average‟ is also misplaced for WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 5 of 6 the reason that it is clear from the documents placed on record by the Petitioner himself that as per Instructions No. P-VII-3/1994-Adm-3 dated 20/08/1994, there was no provision to communicate „Average‟ grading at that time. This fact is also evident from the Office Order dated September 09, 2013 passed by the DIGP, CRPF, the relevant part whereof reads as under:-
"3. The case of No. 881580159 SI/M Arun Kumar Poddar regarding endorsing adverse "Average" grading in the ACRs for the years 1989-1990 to 1994-95 is about 21-22 years old. As per Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi Instruction No. P-VII-3/1994-Adm-3 dated 20/08/1994, there was no provision to communicate "Average" grading at that time. File/documents relating to advisory letters have been weeded out by the concerned offices/units where the official was posted during the relevant period."
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present Petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL JUDGE PRATIBHA RANI JUDGE May 02, 2014 sk WP(c) No.2757/2014 Page 6 of 6