Ved M. Rao vs Secretary, Ministry Of ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4336 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             Writ Petition (Civil) No.6463/2011

%                               Date of Decision: September 5, 2011

VED M. RAO                                          ....Petitioner
                         Through        Mr.Venkatraman, Advocate.

                   VERSUS

SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING
& OTHERS                          .....Respondents
                  Through

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                                ORDER

% SANJIV KHANNA, J.

We have heard Mr. K. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the

petitioner at length. It is submitted that the Annual Confidential Report

(ACR) of the petitioner for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 should have

been ignored as the gradings were not communicated to her in spite of the

fact that the bench mark for the next promotion was „very good‟. It is

submitted that retirement of the petitioner is of no consequence. Lastly, it

is stated that the exercise undertaken by the respondents in reviewing the

ACRs for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is an eyewash as the reporting

as well as the reviewing officer have retired and were not available.

2. Decision in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others

(2008) 8 SCC 725 requires the authorities to communicate gradings

recorded in the ACR, if the gradings recorded do not meet the prescribed

bench mark. The said decision nowhere stipulates that the gradings have

to be ignored. The petitioner had filed O.A.No.2601/2004, which was

disposed of by the tribunal directing that the uncommunicated

downgraded ACRS should be ignored. The respondents challenged the

said decision in W.P.(C)14677-79/2006, which was decided on 6th

February, 2009. In the said decision it was directed that the petitioner

should make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs for the years

1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the respondents should decided the said issue

within two months from the date of the order. It was further directed that

in case the petitioner‟s ACRs are upgraded, a review DPC would be held

and she would be entitled to all benefits, if any. The aforesaid decision

was in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in J.S. Garg Vs.

Union of India 2002 (65) DRJ 607 (FB). In view of the aforesaid

position, the order dated 6th February, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) 14677-

79/2006 has attained finality. The petitioner cannot claim that the ACRs

for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 should be ignored.

3. It is accepted that the petitioner had made a representation for

upgradation of the ACRs, but the said representation has been rejected. It

is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that the

representation should have been decided by the reporting officer and the

reviewing officer in the concerned years. The said officers have retired

and, therefore, the representation was rightly examined by the reporting

officer and the reviewing officer holding the said posts. The order passed

by the said officers, as recorded in the communication dated 15th March,

2010, reads as under:-

ACRs for the period 1998-99-P-III (Assessment of reporting officer).

Nature and quality of work:- The primary assignment of Ms Ved M Rai was planning & production of plays/serials in view of her professional qualifications & experience. But she under to- production of some music programme only, grading „Good‟.

P-V Remarks of the Reviewing Officer- „A Good Officer‟.

ACR for the period 1999-2000 0 Remarks of reporting officer Grading- „Good‟ . Remarks of the Reviewing officer "The output, quantum or work & qualities of work may be graded as „Good‟ only".

4. The officers have taken into consideration planning and production

of plays/serials, which were assigned to the petitioner during the said

period. They have referred to her professional qualifications and

experience. Accordingly, keeping in view the output, quantum of work

and quality of work, she was graded „good‟ in her ACRs for the relevant

years and the gradings were not upgraded.

5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present

writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as

to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 NA