Satya Prakash Vasisht vs Uoi & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 99 Del

$~R-9
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Date of decision: January 07, 2013
+                         W.P.(C) 2544/2001
       SATYA PRAKASH VASISHT                       ..... Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate.
                versus
       UOI & ANR.                                  ..... Respondents

Represented by: Ms.Ruchi Sindhwani, Advocate with Ms.Bandana Shukla, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J.(Oral)

1. Having a checkered career with the Delhi Police, troubles commenced for the petitioner at the very inception after petitioner was selected for appointment as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 1978. He had to litigate inasmuch as the petitioner was declared medically unfit. Petitioner's challenge to being declared medially unfit resulted in an adjudication in his favour requiring Delhi Police to induct the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) with retrospective date of 1978 with all consequential benefits.

2. The second round of litigation which the petitioner had to fight was when 337 posts of Sub-Inspector were upgraded to that of Inspector.

3. The petitioner did not find himself being upgraded as an Inspector and this compelled him to file OA No.2237/1995 which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide decision dated November 29, 2000.

4. The Tribunal noted that as of said date law declared was that a below benchmark ACR grading was not to be intimated to the appraisee and only when there was an adverse entry in the ACR was the same required to be

intimated to the appraisee. The Tribunal noted that not every Sub-Inspector as per seniority was entitled to be upgraded as an Inspector inasmuch as suitability had to be determined and for which the Tribunal noted that a DPC was constituted which considered preceding five years' ACR gradings and adopting the benchmark that the person concerned should have minimum three 'Good' ACR gradings in the said preceding five years. The Tribunal noted that the preceding five years would be the years 1989-1990, 1990- 1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994. The Tribunal noted that in the preceding three years i.e. the year 1991-1992 till the year 1993-1994 the petitioner had consistently been graded 'Average'. Noting that in the preceding year the petitioner was graded 'Very Good' and in the next preceding year as 'Outstanding', the Tribunal held that the decision not to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Inspector could not be faulted.

5. After the decision was pronounced the petitioner filed a Review Petition registered as RA No.49/2001 in which he stated that from the decision of the Tribunal, which was obviously passed after looking into the record of the department, he learnt that the DPC had evolved a benchmark criteria as per a policy circular dated September 23, 1992 and simultaneously highlighted that the said circular referred to an ACR grading 'Good' and highlighted that this was in direct conflict with the ACR proformas as per which only four ACR gradings i.e. (i) 'Outstanding', (ii) 'Very Good', (iii) 'Average', and (iv) 'Below Average', were permissible.

6. In other words, in the Review Application the petitioner pointed out to the Tribunal that there was a complete mismatch between a policy circular/order dated September 23, 1992 and the prescribed format in which the ACR gradings had to be recorded. Meaning thereby, the petitioner brought out that ACR gradings of no police officer would have the grading 'Good'. Now, it is not in dispute that said point was urged by the writ

petitioner for the first time in the Review Application.

7. Dismissing the Review Application vide order dated February 19, 2001, the Tribunal has held that the Review Applicant has tried to re-agitate the same issues which were raised in the OA and as a result the Review Application has been dismissed.

8. Reasoning of the Tribunal is patently incorrect.

9. From the facts noted herein above and even otherwise on perusal of the Review Application it is plain evident that the point which was sought to be urged in the Review Application was neither urged much less considered by the Tribunal when the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on November 29, 2000.

10. We highlight once again that for the first time in the Review Application the petitioner was highlighting a point as noted herein above and was claiming that he was entitled to urge it inasmuch as it was only after the Tribunal gave its verdict that he learnt about the reason for his non- upgradation.

11. Under the circumstances we dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned order dated February 19, 2001.

12. RA No.49/2001 is restored for adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.

13. Notice would be issued by the Tribunal of RA No.41/2009 and after pleadings are completed the same shall be re-decided on merits preferably within four months of receipt of the present order.

14. No costs.

15. DASTI.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(VEENA BIRBAL) JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2013 //dk//