Delhi High Court
Si (M) Arun Kumar Poddar vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 May, 2014
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.2757/2014 and CM No.5720/2014
SI (M) Arun Kumar Poddar ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
CM No. 5720/2014
Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
WP(C) No.2757/2014
1. By way of the present writ petition, the Petitioner, who is
serving as a Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) seeks issuance of a writ of
mandamus directing the Respondents to give effect to his promotion
to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) retrospectively from
27.09.1996 when his counterparts were promoted with all
consequential benefits including arrears of pay, security etc. for the
intervening period.
2. The immediate reason why the Petitioner appears to have filed
the present writ petition is that according to the Petitioner, the
Petitioner‟s counterparts became Inspectors somewhere in the year
2010-11, but yet again the promotion of the Petitioner was withheld.
The representation dated 24.07.2012 (dispatched on 09.08.2012)
preferred by the Petitioner to the Director General, CRPF seeking a
clarification for his non-promotion alongwith his counterparts was
also rejected; and as per the Petitioner, the Petitioner came to know
for the first time vide Signal No. P.VII-1/2012-Min. dated 16.10.2012
issued by the DIGP (Org), Directorate General in response to his
representation that he had not been considered for promotion against
the vacancies available in the year 1996-1997 for the post of S.I. (M)
for the reason that on the basis of his ACRs for 8 years commencing
from 1988-89 to 1995-96, relevant for the purpose of being
considered in the DPC held for the vacancies of S.I. (M) for the year
1996-97, he had been assessed "unfit" by the DPC as he had failed to
achieve the prescribed benchmark.
3. The Petitioner‟s grievance is that the ACRs on the basis of
which the DPC came to the conclusion that he had failed to achieve
the prescribed benchmark were never communicated to the Petitioner
prior to the aforesaid Signal.
4. The Petitioner, thus, contends that he was all along under the
mistaken impression that he could not get promotion due to the
punishment of censure awarded to him during 1993-94, as was
conveyed to him at the relevant time by his superiors, and was
unaware of the fact that he had been denied the benefit of promotion
owing to his alleged failure to achieve the prescribed benchmark in
his ACRs for the period 1989-90 to 1995-96. Thus the Office Order
dated 09.09.2013 vide which the representation dated 02.01.2013 of
the Petitioner was rejected by DIGP, CRPF is liable to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the non-
promotion of the Petitioner by the Respondents for the sole reason
that there were four „Average‟ and one „Below Average‟ remarks in
the ACRs of the Petitioner, which were taken into consideration for
the purpose of his promotion by the Departmental Promotion
Committee held in the year 1996 for the vacancies in the year 1996-
97, could not be said to be justified in view of the fact that the said
„Average‟ remarks were never communicated to the Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner heavily relies upon
Instructions bearing No. R.9/Instn.CRC(Vol.XI) dated 10th May, 2001
on the subject "Supersession Due To „Average‟ Grading Given In
Confidential Report".
7. The relevant part of the aforesaid Instructions reads as under:-
"According to instructions on ACRs, only adverse
remarks recorded in the ACR, if any, are to be
communicated to the Government servant. The
grading in the ACR, even if „Average‟(which may not,
make him eligible to achieve the prescribed bench
mark for promotion), need not be communicated.
However, an order was issued in 1994 by the
Directorate General vide letter No. P.VII.3/94-
Adm.3 dated 20.08.1994 that Officers who were
graded as 'Average' in their ACR, should be advised
suitably (without disclosing grading) to improve
their performance. The intention behind the
instructions was that the Govt. servant should be
advised to improve his performance in the interest of
his career."
8. After hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner, we are not
inclined to entertain the present Petition for the reason that what the
Petitioner seeks to challenge is the „Average‟ grading for the years
1988-89 to 1995-96 and the present petition is, therefore, grossly
barred by delay and laches. The Petitioner was well aware of the fact
that his counterparts had been selected for the post of Sub-Inspectors
(M) for vacancies which fell due in the year 1996, but did not choose
to challenge his supersession by the DPC at the relevant juncture.
The only reason for his not doing so appears to us to be flimsy, being
that he was under the mistaken impression that he could not get the
promotion due to the punishment of „censure‟ awarded to him during
the year 1993-94. We find from the record that the Petitioner was
eventually promoted to the rank of SI (M) on 28.09.2005 and during
this entire period, that is, from the year 1996 to 2005 and even
thereafter till the year 2012, the Petitioner did not prefer any
representation. It was only on 09.08.2012 that the Petitioner preferred
a representation dated 24.07.2012 to the Director General, CRPF
seeking a clarification/reasons for his non-promotion to the rank of
Inspector alongwith his counterparts, and on his being intimated that
his non-promotion was on account of his not meeting the prescribed
benchmark has preferred the present petition.
9. It was imperative upon the Respondents to convey to the
Petitioner the fact of his ACRs being „Average‟ is also misplaced for
the reason that it is clear from the documents placed on record by the
Petitioner himself that as per Instructions No. P-VII-3/1994-Adm-3
dated 20/08/1994, there was no provision to communicate „Average‟
grading at that time. This fact is also evident from the Office Order
dated September 09, 2013 passed by the DIGP, CRPF, the relevant
part whereof reads as under:-
"3. The case of No. 881580159 SI/M Arun Kumar
Poddar regarding endorsing adverse "Average"
grading in the ACRs for the years 1989-1990 to
1994-95 is about 21-22 years old. As per
Directorate General, CRPF, New Delhi
Instruction No. P-VII-3/1994-Adm-3 dated
20/08/1994, there was no provision to
communicate "Average" grading at that time.
File/documents relating to advisory letters have
been weeded out by the concerned offices/units
where the official was posted during the relevant
period."
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the present
Petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGE
PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGE
May 02, 2014
sk
