Sunil Kumar Aggarwal vs Ndmc & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2248 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Date of Decision: May 14, 2013
+                         W.P.(C) 693/2012

      SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL                         ..... Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.Sarvesh Bisaria, Advocate
                                      versus
      NDMC & & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
              Represented by:         Ms.Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate for
                                      R-1.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Ignoring the reasons given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned decision dated September 14, 2011, we are of the opinion that the final conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is correct requiring instant writ petition to be dismissed.

3. Issue pertains to filling up one vacant post of Assistant Engineer (E & M) as of the year 1988. At the DPC held on January 16, 2002 name of Vijay Singh was recommended for promotion for the solitary post. Petitioner challenged the same resulting in the Central Administrative Tribunal deciding, on June 03, 2009, that a review DPC be held.

4. The reason was the allegation made by the petitioner that the ACRs of Vijay Singh were tampered with. Petitioner also had an issue whether, the post being a selection post, criteria as per DoPT Memorandum dated March 27, 1997 or as per OM dated February 08, 2002 was required to be adhered to.

5. Review DPC was held on September 04, 2009. Once again Vijay Singh was empanelled for promotion.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner keep on harping that his client's ACRs are better than that of Vijay Singh.

7. When asked, where are the pleadings to said effect with material particulars i.e. in which paragraph of the Original Application has the petitioner pleaded that his ACRs gradings was 'such and such' and similarly qua Vijay Singh, learned counsel has not been able to show any.

8. Annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition from pages 51 to 58 are the pleadings in the Original Application and we find no such comparative tabulation done.

9. It is settled law that for a selection post a bench mark has to be considered. All those who make the bench mark would be treated as fit, but only said candidates would be promoted who would be senior in the list of selected candidates commensurate to the number of vacancies. There is no concept that with respect to a selection post only the best person earns further promotion.

10. Further, in the absence of any data shown that the petitioner had a better service profile, no relief can be granted and hence the writ petition is dismissed in limine.

11. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

MAY14, 2013/skb