Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors vs Nishith Goyal & Anr on 9 May, 2016
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4031/2016
Date of decision: 9th May, 2016
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Dr. Ashwani Bharadwaj, Adv.
versus
NISHITH GOYAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik &
Ms. Joymoti Mize, Advs. for UPSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. The Union of India and two others have filed this writ petition
impugning the order dated 12th May, 2015 passed by the Principal
Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby OA
No.2161/2013 has been allowed with the direction that a review
Departmental Promotion Committee should be constituted as the
Annual Confidential Report of Nishith Goyal, the respondent herein,
for the period from 1.4.2004 to 15.11.2004 has been upgraded.
2. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and find that the
impugned order is just and fair. It does not require interference.
3. The respondent No.1 is a 1988 batch officer of the IRS
(Customs & Central Excise) Group A Service. Departmental
Promotion Committee had considered for promotion to the post of
Commissioner of Central Excise in their meetings held on the 9 and
10th of January, 2012 in respect of 23 vacancies for the year 2010-11
and 45 vacancies for the year 2011-12.
4. The respondent was selected and found fit for promotion for the
year 2011-12, but was declared unfit for the vacancies for the year
2010-11. This was for the reason that the first respondent had below
the benchmark grading in the ACR for the year 2004-05 for the period
from 1.4.2004 to 15.11.2004. This ACR was not relevant for the
vacancies in 2011-12 but was relevant for the vacancies relating to
2010-11.
5. The respondent had earlier protested against the adverse
remarks given in his ACR for the period 16.11.2004 to 31.3.2005 and
by order dated 11.6.2008, the adverse remark was expunged.
6. It transpires that below the benchmark grading for the period
between 1.4.2004 to 15.11.2004 was not circulated and informed to
the first respondent till instructions dated 13.4.2010 were issued by
the Department of Personnel and Training. After the below the
benchmark grading in the ACR was circulated, the first respondent
made a representation; which was rejected by the Reviewing Officer
vide order dated 2.8.2011. However, on a memorial/appeal, the
President of India accepted the said representation. On 6.2.2012, the
first respondent was informed that his overall final grading in ACR
for the period from 1.4.2004 to 15.11.2004 has been upgraded to
'Very Good'.
7. It is obvious that the DPC, which had met earlier, had taken the
previous unaltered below the benchmark grading and had declared the
first respondent was unfit for the vacancies related to year 2010-11.
The grading of 'Very Good', which is now on record for the period
1.4.2004 to 15.11.2004, was not taken into account and considered by
the said DPC.
8. The Tribunal in the aforesaid circumstances has rightly directed
that the Review DPC should be held for consideration of the first
respondent's case for the vacancies arising in the year 2010-11.
Upgradation of the grading the ACR for the period 01.04.2004 to
15.11.2004 necessitates and mandates the said direction. The first
respondent would have possibly lost his seniority as his juniors would
have been promoted ahead of him. The order passed by the Tribunal
is just and fair and thus requires no interference. The petition is
dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 09, 2016/ak
