Delhi High Court
Raj Bala vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 27 January, 2016
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 665/2016
Date of decision: 27th January, 2016
RAJ BALA ... Petitioner
Through Mr. Raj Kumar Sherawat, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Additional
Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition impugning
order dated 23rd May, 2014, passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, dismissing the O.A No. 4298/2012.
2. The Tribunal after elucidating on the facts has rejected the
petitioner's prayer for grant of the promotion to the grade of Deputy
Director of Education (PE & NI).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to
paragraph 11 of the impugned order. The said paragraph refers to the
submission made by the respondents that there were procedural
hurdles in holding the DPC under the extant Recruitment Rules (RRs,
for short) and observes that there has been delay in examining the
recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission for amendment of the
RRs and steps in that direction were taken only when it was pointed
out by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short).
Accordingly, the Tribunal has expressed the hope that the respondent
would take expeditious action for amending the RRs.
4. In spite of the aforesaid observations, we would hold that the
Tribunal has rightly held that no relief could be granted to the
petitioner. In the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2006-
2007 and 2008-09, the petitioner was graded as 'Good', which was
below the benchmark of 'Very Good' required for promotion to the
post of Deputy Director. On representation made by the petitioner,
the ACR for the year 2006-07 was upgraded to 'Very Good', but the
overall grading for the year 2008-09 as 'Good' was maintained and not
upgraded. In these circumstances, the delay in holding the DPC is not
relevant and is inconsequential.
5. Another contention raised is that the petitioner had made
allegations of malafide against the respondent No.4, one Mr. Satpal.
Paragraph 2 of the impugned order records that the petitioner had
given up the said plea during the course of hearing and had restricted
his prayer to quashing of order dated 20th September, 2012 refusing
upgradation of the ACR for the year 2008-09 from 'Good' to 'Very
Good'.
6. Tribunal did not accept the prayer for upgradation of the ACR
for the year 2008-2009 after referring to the remarks of the Reporting
Officer and the Reviewing Officer. Both the Reporting and Reviewing
Officer having retired, the Appellate Authority had taken the decision
on the basis of available documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the
supervisory officers were in the best position to assess performance of
the petitioner, unless there were grounds and reasons to disbelieve
their objectivity. The Tribunal has held that they were not convinced
that the impugned order dated 20th September, 2012 passed by the
Director of Education rejecting the prayer for upgradation suffers from
the such vice, nor does the order reflects non-application of mind. We
agree that the first sentence in paragraph 10 of the impugned order is a
little ambiguous but the said sentence has to be read along with the
findings recorded subsequently.
7. Challenge to instructions i.e. the notification dated 9th August,
1994 by the Education Department in the Delhi Gazette is
misconceived. These are general instructions in the form of guidelines
for conduct of DPC. The instructions envisage that the DPC shall
consider ACRs of five years of the eligible candidates in the zone of
consideration. It has been rightly observed by the Tribunal that the
stipulation of two years of regular service in the grade of Assistant
Director is only an eligibility condition mentioned in the RRs. These
rules do not stipulate that ACRs for only two years would be
considered. Paragraphs 7 of the impugned order, pertinently states
that the general instructions cannot be struck down or faulted for
prescribing benchmark of 'Very Good'. The benchmark prescribed
for promotion to the entry level post of group 'A' is 'Very Good'. The
post of Deputy Director of Education carries the pay scale of the
lowest level in group 'A'. Further, the DPC had to follow their
methodology and have made assessment in accordance with their
existing instructions for assessing suitability for promotion to the post
of Deputy Director.
8. We notice that the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2014 and the
present writ petition was filed in January, 2015. Thereafter the writ
petition had remained under office objection for about an year.
Possibly, the petitioner was awaiting the result of the next DPC. We
hope and trust that the respondents had taken notice of the
observations made in paragraph 11 of the impugned order as well as
the advice received from the UPSC on 12th July, 2013.
9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not see any reason to interfere
with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JANUARY 27, 2016
NA
