Delhi High Court
Shiv Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999 IAD Delhi 697, 77 (1999) DLT 427, 1999 (48) DRJ 509
Author: K Ramamoorthy
Bench: K Ramamoorthy
ORDER
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The point involved in this case lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"The petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to respondent authorities to:
(a) detail the petitioner for the mandatory "S" training course for the purpose of consideration for promotion from his present rank of Havaldar, in the NonCommissioned Officer cadre, to the next rank of Naib Subedar in the Junior Commissioned cadre.
2. The facts that are not in dispute are:
For the year 1994, the initiating officer had given the petitioner the grading '3' and the reviewing officer had given him the grading '3'. That means, he was put on the grading 'High Average'. For the year 1993, the position was the same. For the year 1992, the initiating officer had given the petitioner the grading '4' and the reviewing officer had also given him the grading '4' and he was put on the grading 'Above Average'. For the year 1991, the initiating officer had given the petitioner the grading '3' and the reviewing officer had given him the grading '4'. That means, the initiating officer had graded the petitioner in 'High Average' and the reviewing officer had placed him on the grading 'Above Average'.
3. For the purpose of one being considered for promotion to the next cadre, the concerned officer should possess two 'Above Average' gradings. The question now is whether for the year 1991 the petitioner had secured 'Above Average' or 'High Average' grading.
4. Mr.A.K. Bakshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a fundamental principle that one has to go by the view taken by the reviewing officer who is the final authority in the matter and by that reckoning the petitioner gets 'Above Average' grading and, therefore, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher rank. For the purpose of his promotion, he has to undergo three years' training course, for which purpose the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
5. The stand taken by the respondents is that there had been a difference of opinion on the question of grading by the initiating officer and the reviewing officer, and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be treated to have secured 'Above Average' grading. The stand taken by the respondents is not at all sustainable in law. The respondents have to go by the grading given by the reviewing officer. Thus, the petitioner satisfies the requirement of the rule by securing two 'Above Average' gradings, and, therefore, he should have been sent for the training as prayed for by him in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.
6. The petitioner shall be detailed for the mandatory "S" training in the first available training course by the respondents. This is without prejudice to his rights in the seniority along with his batchmates.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
