Delhi High Court
Shri R.S. Gill vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 2 September, 2004
Author: B Khan
Bench: B Khan, M Goel
JUDGMENT
B.A. Khan, J.
1. Petitioner's writ petition challenging his non-promotion to the post of Dy. Inspector General has been dismissed by Tribunal giving rise to this petition.
2. Petitioner an aspirant for promotion was at Serial No. 8 of the enlisted Officers falling in the zone of consideration. Two senior Officers (Respondent No. 3 & 4) were promoted but he was left out.
3. Petitioner challenged this by invoking terms of OM dated 16.10.2000 which according to him, authorised the DPC to consider the ACRs of contenders of preceding five years only. His grievance was that the DPC had gone beyond five years and had considered eight years of ACRs and this way it had violated the provisions of the aforesaid OM, laying down the procedure to be observed by the DPC. A judgment of J & K High Court was relied upon to support the case.
4. Tribunal examined petitioners grievance and found that even if it was assumed that DPC had considered ACRs beyond the last preceding five years, yet promotion of respondents 3 & 4 who were admittedly senior to petitioner could not be questioned. The judgment of J & K High Court pressed in service by petitioner was distinguished.
5. Relevant provisions of the OM relied upon by petitioner provides as under:-
"The DPC should assess the suitability of the employees for promotion on the basis of their service records and with particular reference to the CRs for five preceding years irrespective of the qualifying service prescribed in the Service/Recruitment Rules. The 'preceding five years' for the aforesaid purpose shall be decided as per the guidelines contained in the DoP & T.O.M.No.22011/9/08-Estt. (D) dated September 8, 1998, which prescribe the Model Calender for DPC read with OM of even number, dated June 16, 2000. (If more than one CR have been written for a particular year, all the Crs for the relevant years shall be considered together as the CR for one year)."
6. The OM only prescribes procedure to be observed by the DPC. Moreover it provides that DPC could assess the suitability of candidates for promotion on the basis of service record and with particular reference to CRs of preceding five years. This does not mean that DPC is debarred from looking into ACRs for years other than the preceding five years because if it was competent to examine the service record of the employee, it could as well look into the CR of any year also. But that apart, petitioners case is devoid of any merit. He does not indicate how he was prejudiced by the alleged action of the DPC. Nor it is his case that he was more meritorious than R-3 & 4 who are admittedly senior to him and whose service record is as good if not bad.
7. Petitioner's reliance on judgment of J & K High Court is also misplaced. This judgment, in our view, has no relevance for the point in issue.
8. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in dismissing petitioners OA. This petition also meets the same fate and is dismissed.
