Delhi High Court
Sh. J.K. Pali vs Union Of India And Ors. on 28 July, 2010
Author: A.K.Sikri
Reportable
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 2925/1994
% Date of Decision: 28th July, 2010.
Sh. J.K. Pali ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.O.P. Khadaria, Advocate.
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Viraj R. Datar, Mr. Chetan Lokur
and Mr. Krishanu Adhikary, Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed
to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner herein was a member of Delhi Judicial Service. He was
appointed to the said post on his selection after he qualified the
written test and interview in the 1972 batch. For his promotion in the
cadre to Delhi Higher Judicial Service (for short „DHJS‟), the petitioner,
as per his seniority, became eligible to be considered for promotion to
DHJS in the year 1992. However, he was not given promotion on the
ground that he was found „unfit for promotion‟. In the selection
process carried out for the same purpose in the year 1994, the
petitioner was again bypassed and certain juniors to him were
promoted. In these circumstances, the present writ petition was filed
by the petitioner in the year 1994 whereby he has sought quashing of
the impugned orders dated 8th December, 1992, 4th April, 1994 and
27th May, 1995 passed by the respondents no.2 and 3, denying him the
promotion to DHJS.
2. The petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category. The case set
up by him is that he was entitled to the promotion to DHJS keeping in
view his seniority as well as the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs).
3. In the seniority list dated 25th October, 1990, the name of the
petitioner appears at serial no. 10. In the exercise which was
undertaken for promotion to the DHJS, names of 10 officers belonging
to the Delhi Judicial Services were recommended for promotion -
superseding the petitioner. How it happened and what is the basis for
challenge to the aforesaid action of the respondent in not promoting
the petitioner will be considered after we take note of the relevant
rules for promotion as well as the ACRs of the petitioner in the relevant
years which were the subject matter of consideration.
4. The promotion to DHJS is governed by Rule 7 (which existed at the
relevant time) of the DHJS Rules, 1972. This rule is to the following
effect: -
"7. REGULAR RECRUITMENT - Recruitment after the initial
recruitment shall be made: -
(a) by promotion on the basis of selection from members of the
Delhi Judicial Service, who have completed not less than 10
years of service in the Delhi Judicial Service;
(b) by direct recruitment from the Bar.
Provided that not more than 1/3rd of the (*) posts in the
Service shall be held by direct recruits.
Provided further that where a member of the Delhi Judicial
Service is considered for such appointment under clause (a)
all persons senior to him in the Service shall also be
considered, irrespective of the fact whether or not they fulfil
the requirements as to the minimum of 10 years service."
5. Since the petitioner is laying claim to DHJS by promotion, he is covered
by clause (a) of Rule 7 of the said Rules. This clause, in no uncertain
terms, stipulates that promotion is on the basis of "selection" from the
members of the Delhi Judicial Services.
6. The normal procedure which is followed is to take into consideration
the ACRs of the preceding five years, relevant to the year in which the
promotion process is undertaken. Thus, in the year 1990, the ACRs of
the eligible persons, namely, who had completed 10 years of service in
the Delhi Judicial Service would be for the period 1985 to 1989. In all
these years, the petitioner had earned „B‟ grading.
7. From 1985 to 1989, the petitioner was given B grading. Learned
counsel for the respondent has produced the original records
containing Full Court Minutes and exercise of promotion carried out
from time to time for all the period prior to 1990 and even after 1990.
Minutes of the Full Court Meetings giving promotions to Judicial Officers
in the Higher Judicial Service are also produced. Perusal thereof shows
that those Judicial Officers, who had earned at least one B+ at the
relevant year are treated as fit for promotion. This can be discerned
from the agenda note prepared for the Full Court Meeting held on
29.07.1989. Referring to the earlier proceedings of the Full Court, this
note, inter alia, produce as under:
"Since the method of appointment has been changed to
"promotion by selection" from amongst the members of Delhi
Judicial Service, only one officer, namely Shri S.P. Singh
Chaudhary was superseded twice i.e. in 1978 and 1979 when he
had ACRs as „B‟ for the last three years and he was selected as
Additional District and Sessions Judge per decision of the Full
Court dated 30.04.1979, when he earned one „B+‟. The
promotion by selection provided in the rules has, in fact, been
implemented as selection on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness
i.e. subject to rejection of unfit."
8. It also follows from the above that method of promotion on the basis of
selection is on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness subject to rejection of
the unfit. In this very „Note‟, the yardstick for the promotion of
Scheduled Castes candidates is also stipulated. This reads as under
"Regarding promotion by selection of Scheduled Caste
candidate, Chapter 9.2(a) of Brochure on Reservation of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes reads as under:-
"9.2(a) : Promotions by selection within Group A
(Class I).
In promotions by selection to posts within Group
A (Class I) which carry an ultimate salary of Rs.2,000/-
per month, or less, (Rs.2250/- per month or less in the
revised scale) there is no reservation, but the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Officers, who are
senior enough in the zone of consideration for
promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies
for which the select list has to be drawn up, would be
included in that list provided they are not considered
unfit for promotion. Their position in the select list
would, however, be the same as assigned to them by
the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis
of their record of service. They would not be given, for
this purpose, one grading higher than the grading
otherwise assignable to them on the basis of their
record of service."
A perusal of the above said para shows that there is no
reservation for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe
candidates for promotion within group „A‟ (Class I) posts but if a
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Officer is senior enough in
the zone of consideration, so as to be within the number of
vacancies for which select list is to be drawn up he would be
included in that list provided he is not considered unfit for
promotion.
In this case, Shri Shiv Charan is a Scheduled Caste candidate
and he comes within the number of vacancies are three.
The Govt. of India instructions having bearing on the question of
field of choice contained in the Ministry of Home, Deptt. of
Personnel and Administrative Reforms, O.M. dated 24.12.1980
were never made applicable to the selection or/for putting the
officers on probation in connection with the matter in Delhi
Higher Judicial Service. These instructions regarding placing of
officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service on probation under Rule
12(2) of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules came up for
consideration before the Full Court and the Full Court in its
meeting held on 6.10.1982 held that the Memorandum issued
by the Ministry of Home, Govt. of India, was not applicable. The
minutes of the Full Court meeting held on 6.10.82 are
reproduced here in extenso for ready reference:-
AGENDA MINUTES
2. (Item No.1 of the The discussion of this
Agenda) item was continued
from the previous
To consider the meeting. It was
matter regarding resolved to adopt the
placing certain following criteria in
officers on selecting officers
probation under from Delhi Judicial
rule 12(2) of the Service for being
Delhi Higher placed on probation
Judicial Service in the Delhi Higher
Rules alongwith Judicial Service:-
the
recommendations i) Selection will
of the Special be made for
Committee filling each
comprising of post, whether
Hon‟ble Mr. Justice vacant or
S.S. Chadha, whether the
Hon‟ble Mr. Justice vacancy is
J.D. Jain and anticipated by
Hon‟ble Mr. Justice considering
B.N. Kirpal eligible
persons as
detailed
hereunder, for
one post at a
time.
ii) The zone of
consideration
for each post
will be five
senior-most
eligible officer
of the Delhi
Judicial
Service.
iii) The
memoranda
issued by the
Home Ministry
of the Govt. of
India, it was
resolved, was
as such not
applicable.
iv) The selection
will be made
on the basis of
confidential
reports and
other relevant
factors.
It was decided
that it was not
necessary to have
regulations framed
for this purpose as it
was a criteria which
is being adopted by
the Full Court for its
own guidance in
selecting officers for
appointment on
probation."
9. This shows that Clause 9.2(a) of the „Brochure on reservation of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes‟ is being followed. It, further,
indicates that instructions contained in Office Memorandum dated
24.12.1980 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative
Reforms on the question of field of choice have not been followed on
the ground that these instructions are not applicable. The selection of
the officers made from time to time right from 1984 till 2003 were also
produced in tabulated form and after scanning through the same, it
becomes clear that only those officers who had one B+ in five years
ACR were promoted to Higher Judicial Service. It also shows that those
officers who could not earn one B+ even when they belong to
scheduled castes category were not promoted and got their promotion
in subsequent years only when they earn B+ grade.
10. In the wake of the aforesaid factual premise and the practice followed,
Mr. Khadaria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted
that it was not proper on the part of the respondents to insist on one
grade of B+ for one year in the case of scheduled castes as well. His
submission was that the petitioner who belongs to scheduled caste
category was entitled to „concession‟ and even if he had B grading in
all five years, he was entitled to promotion to DJHS. Expanding on this
argument, Mr. Khadaria submitted that the relevant consideration was
that candidate should not be „unfit‟ for promotion. That was the
yardstick to be applied as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of National Federation of S.B.I. & Others vs. Union of India &
Others [AIR 1995 SC 1457]. Referring to the ACRs of the petitioner,
Mr. Khadaria pointed out that the Inspecting Judge(s) in different years
had given „B+‟ grading. While giving those gradings, they had
categorically opined that the petitioner had „good knowledge of law
and procedure, he was industrious and prompt in disposal of case, his
judgments/orders were well written, and he was efficient and honest
officer‟. He, thus, submitted that even if the Full Court did not accept
the grading recommended by the Inspecting Judge(s) and the final
grading given to him was B, the fact remains that he was rated as a
good officer, who not only had the knowledge of the law but his
judgments were well written and he was performing his duty honestly
and nothing adverse was found against him. On these parameters, it
was argued, the petitioner could not be treated as „unfit‟ for promotion.
11. He also buttressed his submission by arguing that within eight days of
rejecting him for promotion, the petitioner was posted as Senior Sub-
Judge and in that capacity he was hearing appeals from the orders of
Sub-Judge (Civil Judge). This would also show that the petitioner was
treated as competent officer by the High Court and thus, could not
have been ignored for promotion to the Higher Judicial Services.
12. The aforesaid arguments would not advance the case of the petitioner
when considered is the light of the facts of this case. We have already
pointed out the criteria for promotion to Higher Judicial Services, which
the High Court has consistently followed for more than 30 years, i.e.,
ever since there was an amendment in Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher
Judicial Services Rules vide Notification dated 28.03.1977 and the
method of appointment was changed to promotion by selection. As
per this, the benchmark which is laid down is that a judicial officer who
earns one „B‟ in the preceding five years is treated as „unfit‟. It is this
yardstick, which is to be applied while considering a candidate for
promotion. As pointed out above, not a single case till date where
candidate belongs to general category or reserved category was
promoted who has earned one „B+‟. The Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and Others vs. Samar Singh and Others [(1996) 10
SCC 555, has clearly held that merely because the minutes of the
Committee do not contain the reason for non-selection of the
respondent does not mean that there has been no proper
consideration of the merits and suitability of the candidate.
13. The criteria for promotion of reserved category candidate would be the
same. Higher Judicial Service is a Class-I post. Further, it is „Selection
Post‟. In such a case, the DOPT has categorically laid down that there
would not be any relaxation in the standards even if the candidate
belongs to reserved category.
"6.3.2 In the case of SC/ST officers. - (i) In promotions by "Selection-cum-
Seniority" and "Selection by Merit" to posts/services within Group „A‟ which
carry an ultimate salary of Rs.5,700 p.m. or less, in the IV PC pay Scale
(Rs.8300, Vth Pay Commission), the SCs/STs senior enough in the zone of
consideration for portion so as to be within the number of vacancies for which
the select list has to be drawn up, would be included".
14. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and
Ors. Vs. Alok Kumar [(2010) (4) SCALE 92 explained these principles
of law, which clearly applies to the present case, in the following
terms:
"41. It is not opposed to any canons of service jurisprudence that a
practice cannot adopt the status of an instruction, provided it is in
consonance with law and has been followed for a considerable time.
This concept is not an absolute proposition of law but can be applied
depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court
in the case of Confederation of Ex-Service Man Associations and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 699 was concerned with providing
of Medicare /Medical aid to ex-servicemen and the scheme framed by
the Government to provide ex-defence personnel medical services
provided they paid "one-time contribution", was held not to be
arbitrary and based on the practice followed earlier. In such
circumstances, this Court held as under:
In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an
administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to
act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good
administration demands observance of reasonableness and
where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even
in the absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such
practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or
privilege exercised.
42. A practice adopted for a considerable time, which is not violative of
the Constitution or otherwise bad in law or against public policy can be
termed good in law as well. It is a settled principle of law, that practice
adopted and followed in the past and within the knowledge of the
public at large, can legitimately be treated as good practice acceptable
in law. What has been part of the general functioning of the authority
concerned can safely be adopted as good practice, particularly, when
such practices are clarificatory in nature and have been consistently
implemented by the concerned authority, unless it is in conflict with
the statutory provisions or principal document. A practice which is
uniformly applied and is in the larger public interest may introduce an
element of fairness. A good practice of the past can even provide good
guidance for future. This accepted principle can safely be applied to a
case where the need so arises, keeping in view the facts of that case.
This view has been taken by different High Courts and one also finds
glimpse of the same in a judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy
Commissioner of Police and Ors. v. Mohd. Khaja Ali 2000 (2) SLR 49."
15. In view of the aforesaid position, the petitioner could not claim
promotion to Delhi Higher Judicial Services on the basis of his „B‟
gradings alone in all the years. Not much importance can be given to
the remarks given by the Inspecting Judge(s) in the ACRs of the
petitioner on the basis of which strong reliance was placed by Mr.
Khadaria. As pointed out above, these are the remarks of Inspecting
Judge(s), who had recommended „B+‟ (Good) grading to the petitioner.
However, these recommendations of the Inspecting Judge(s) were not
accepted by the Full Court. The Full Court ultimately awarded grading
„B‟ (Average) in all these years. Therefore, the fact remains that for all
these years, the petitioner was rated as an „average‟ for want of one
„B+‟ grading. He was to be treated as „unfit‟ after applying the criteria
laid down by the Full Court in this behalf.
16. In such a situation, whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in
National Federation of S.B.I. & Others (supra) helps the
petitioner? Mr. Khadaria had argued that the Supreme Court in the
said case has categorically explained and clarified the term „not found
fit‟ by explaining that it conveys that there is nothing adverse against
the candidate. He also argued that the Supreme Court had laid down
that persons belonging to reserved category were entitled to
„concession‟, which would mean that all such candidates who are
senior enough in zone of consideration for promotion to be included in
select list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion. The
Supreme Court also expressed that the „concession‟ is evidently
designed and intended to help the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
officers obtain promotions which they may not otherwise get.
17. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, we may first
point out that the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a public
sector bank. No doubt, promotion in that case was also by selection
and that too the post within Class - I. However, the observations of the
Court are based on letter dated May 09, 1980 issued by the Ministry of
Defence, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division),
Government of India as well as Office Memorandum dated March 26,
1970. This would be clear from reading of Paras 12 and 17 of the
judgment which was strongly relied upon by Mr. Khadaria:
"12. It would be appropriate at this stage to refer to the letter dated
May 9, 1980 from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic
Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, addressed to the
Chairman, Indian Banks Association, Bombay explaining the meaning
of certain expressions occurring in the Office Memorandums refereed
to above. They are to the following effect: though according to the New
Officers Service Regulations, salary includes basic pay and DA, so far
as reservations are concerned, i.e., for the purpose of reservation,
"ultimate salary" is meant to convey the basic pay only and does not
include the variable DA. It was for this purpose that promotions upto
Scale-Ill have been covered which carries the scale upto Rs. 2250
which is exclusive of DA". With respect to the expressions "zone of
consideration" and "not found unfit", the following clarification was
made:
Clarifications have also been sought regarding the term "zone
of consideration" and "Not found unfit". Zone of consideration is
meant to cover all candidates who satisfy the prescribed
conditions which have been laid down for being considered for
promotion. This would mean that this zone of consideration
would be similarly applicable to the general as well as SC/ST
candidates. As regards the term "Not found unfit", it is clarified
that this terms is meant to convey that there is nothing adverse
against the candidate.
xxx xxx xxx
17. We may now turn to the meaning and nature of the "concession"
contained in the Office Memorandum dated March 26, 1970. We have
already set out the significant features of the said concession
contained in Para 2 of Office Memorandum in Para 5 of this judgment.
We shall now explain what exactly does the formula mentioned under
(c) in Paragraph 5 of our judgment mean? For the sake of convenience,
we shall repeat the formula. "In promotions by selection to posts within
Class-I... the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers who are
senior enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be
within the number of vacancies for which the select list has to be
drawn up would be included in the list provided they are not
considered unfit for promotion". It is unnecessary to reiterate that the
said Office Memorandum does not provide for reservation as
contemplated by Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India; it only
provides for a concession which the State can always provide under
Article 16 as explained in Indira Sawhney and Ors. etc.etc. v. Union of
India and Ors. [1992] Supp. 3 S.C.C. 217. The concession is evidently
designed and intended to help the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
officers obtain promotions which they may not otherwise get. Towards
that purpose, it is provided that those Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes officers who are senior enough in the zone of consideration so
as to be within the number of vacancies available shall be included in
the select list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion.
The said formula has been explained with reference to an illustration in
the letter dated November 7, 1983, referred to above. Be that as it
may, we shall elaborate and explain it. Take a case where twenty
vacancies arise which have to be filled by promotion by selection;
according to the relevant rules, thrice the number of vacancies are to
be considered - in other words, a list of sixty eligible candidates has to
be prepared who alone will be considered for promotion to the said
twenty posts, which list is but another name for "the zone of
consideration" referred to in the Office Memorandum; (ordinarily, this
list is prepared on the basis of seniority-cum-eligibility); if any
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officer happen to fall within Serial
No. 1 to 20 in the said list, they shall be included in the select list
without further ado, i.e., without subjecting them to the process of
selection and without comparing their merit and grading with the merit
and grading of the other officers within the zone of consideration. But
for the said concession, it may be noted, these Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers may not get selected even though
they may fall within Serial No. 1 to 20 in the zone of consideration for
the reason that the candidates below Serial No. 20 may have a better
record of service and grading than them. Since the promotion is on the
basis of selection, the more meritorious (the officer having better
grading) will get selected notwithstanding his position in the zone of
consideration. It appears quite obvious that candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were not getting selected by
following the normal procedure of selection and hence, the said
concession was provided. According to it, it is enough if a Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidate comes within Serial No. 1 to 20 in
the zone of consideration in the illustration given above. He would be
automatically included in the select list, even though his grading on
the basis of his record and performance may be far inferior to the
grading of the other officers below Serial No. 20 in the zone of
consideration provided, of course, such Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes' officer is not found unfit for promotion. So far as Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates below Serial No. 20 in the zone of
consideration are concerned, they will, of course, be not entitled to any
such concession and, therefore, have to compete with other
candidates within the zone of consideration. It is equally clear that the
O.C. candidates between Serial No. 1 to 20 in the zone of consideration
will not be entitled to the aforesaid concession; they will have to
compete with all others in the zone of consideration (S.No. 1 to 60) for
selection to the said vacancies. This, in short, is the concession. Since
it is only a concession and not a reservation, the several letters of the
Ministry of Finance referred to above, viz., letters dated May 30, 1981,
November 7,1983, March 25,1987 and the clarificatory Office
Memorandum dated November 1, 1990 repeatedly say that while there
is no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in this
behalf (i.e., in the matter of promotion by selection to posts within
Class-I) a concession is provided to them. It is because of this
circumstance again that Para 9.2 in the seventh edition of the
Brochure on the subject of reservation for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in services says that while there is no reservation,
the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates are entitled to the
concession mentioned therein."
18. In para 12 where it is noted that "not found unfit" would mean that
there is nothing adverse against the candidate, that was as per the
clarification issued by the Department in its letter dated May 09, 1980.
Likewise, in para 17 where the Supreme Court was dealing with
„concession‟, it was with respect to the Office Memorandum dated
March 26, 1970, which is clear from the following:
"... For the sake of convenience, we shall repeat the formula. "In
promotions by selection to posts within Class-I... the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers who are senior enough in the zone of
consideration for promotion so as to be within the number of vacancies
for which the select list has to be drawn up would be included in the
list provided they are not considered unfit for promotion".
19. Even as per the formula contained in OM dated 26.03.1970, it is clearly
provided that those Scheduled Castes candidates, who are considered
unfit for promotion would not be included in the select list. No doubt,
what is held is that if the reserved category candidates, who are senior
enough in the zone of consideration for promotion so as to be within
the number of vacancies for which the select list has to be drawn up,
would be included in the select list. The assessment is to be made by
comparing his merit with other officers. However, at the same time, it
is also necessary that he has to be found fit for promotion, i.e., he is
not considered „unfit‟ for promotion. In the present case, the criteria
laid down for „unfit‟ for promotion has to be followed. The criteria
stipulated by this Court is that a candidate who has not got even one
„B+‟ is rejected as „unfit‟ for promotion. Meaning thereby a candidate
who becomes fit for promotion has to earn at least one „B+‟. As a
squatter, a candidate who has earned only „B‟ grade in all five years is
to be treated as „unfit‟ for promotion. That is precisely the position
insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
20. It is trite law that it is for the employer to fix criteria of promotion. To
put it otherwise, it is employee‟s prerogative to lay down as to who
would be treated as „unfit‟ for promotion. In the case of Union of
India and Others vs. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan and
Others [(2006) 6 SCC 698, the Supreme Court explained that all the
three modes, i.e., (1) Seniority-cum-fitness, (2) Seniority-cum-merit,
and (3) Merit-cum-suitability with due regard to seniority - made the
following pertinent observations of the process, which are relevant for
us:
"12. Wherever fitness is stipulated as the basis of selection, it is
regarded as a non-selection post to be filled on the basis of seniority
subject to rejection of the unfit. Fitness means fitness in all respects.
"Seniority cum merit" postulates the requirement of certain minimum
merit or satisfying a benchmark previously fixed. Subject to fulfilling
this requirement the promotion is based on seniority. There is no
requirement of assessment of comparative merit both in the case of
seniority cum fitness and seniority cum merit. Merit cum suitability
with due regard to seniority as prescribed in the case of promotion to
All India Services necessarily involves assessment of comparative
merit of all eligible candidates, and selecting the best out of them."
21. In the present case, no comparative merit was assessed either. Insofar
as the petitioner is concerned, he could not even cross the threshold,
i.e., could not earn one „B+‟ and therefore found „unfit‟ for promotion.
22. When the case of the petitioner came up for consideration again in the
year 1992, the ACRs of 1990 and 1991 also became relevant.
Unfortunately, for the petitioner, his ACRs for these two years are
further downgraded, as the CR for the year 1990 was graded as „C‟ and
1991 „C‟ (with integrity doubtful). There was no question of giving any
promotion to the petitioner with aforesaid ACRs.
23. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no substance in
the prayers made by the petitioner in this writ petition. For the
reasons given by us above, we are of the opinion that the petitioner
was rightly treated as "unfit for promotion" on both the occasions, i.e.,
in the year 1992 as well as in the year 1994. Therefore, finding no
merit in this writ petition, we accordingly dismiss the same. There
shall, however, be no orders as to costs.
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
(REVA KHETRAPAL)
JUDGE
JULY 28, 2010.
sk/pmc
