Delhi High Court
Umesh Dutt Sharma vs Union Of India And Anr on 20 February, 2018
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1617/2018 & C.M. No. 6645/2018 (delay)
UMESH DUTT SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Mr. Rohit Pandey,
Mr. Sarthak Chaturvedi and Mr. Nishant Kumar
and Mr. Prabhu Singh, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 20.02.2018
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.03.2014 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 3878/2012 filed by him
for seeking quashment of a promotion of order dated 23.03.2012, passed in
respect of JE Grade-II under LDCE quota and further, consider him for
promotion to the subject post with all consequential benefits.
2. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the
petitioner by making the following observations:-
"We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant
Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and the learned counsel for the
Respondents Shri Rajinder Khatter. According to the
Applicant himself, he appeared for LDCE for appointment to
the post of JE-II held earlier on 16.06.2010. Though the
Applicant was successful in the written test, he could not make
it to the final list of selected candidates. His grievance was
that that he had done Diploma in Rail Transport and
Management and had an additional qualification of Diploma
in Electrical Engineering having 1st class certificate as such he
was entitled to get additional 20 marks under the heading
"Personality Address, leadership and Academic/Technical
Qualifications in terms of RBE No.55/86. However, this
Tribunal did not find any merit in his contention and dismissed
OA No.2995/2010 (supra) filed by him on 24.11.2011. In the
examination held on 20.12.2011 also, the Applicant cleared
the written test securing 60% marks which was more than the
minimum of the prescribed marks of 50 but again could not
find his place in the final list of selected candidates prepared
on the basis of total marks obtained both in the written
examination and the service records. Therefore, he has filed
this OA alleging tampering his answer sheet and not following
the correct procedure. In our considered view, there is no
merit in the Original Application. He is only making wild
allegations without substantiating them. Admittedly, the
number of posts advertised was for three for general category
candidates and one SC candidate. The Applicant's position in
the merit list was below the selected candidates. Therefore, he
was not selected. The Applicant has not challenged the
gradings given to him in his ACRs. Instead of accepting the
facts, as it is, the Applicant's endeavor is to find fault with
others."
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a review application before the
Tribunal in the year 2014 itself, which came to be disposed of vide order
dated 12.5.2016, by simply correcting a typographical error in the name of
the petitioner that had wrongly been mentioned as "Umed Dutt Sharma"
instead of "Umesh Dutt Sharma". However, the rest of the order passed on
23.3.2012 was maintained.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has erred
in rejecting the O.A. filed by the petitioner inasmuch as it failed to
appreciate that one Sh. Virender Kumar Mishra, who was in Technician
Grade-III, was given promotion on "Very Good" remarks in the year
2008-09 whereas his ACRs were actually manipulated to show that he had
received "Outstanding" remarks. Learned counsel states that the Tribunal
did not take into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner that the marking system in the LDCE examination was biased and
the final outcome remained dependent upon the grade given in the ACRs,
thereby providing ample opportunity to manipulate the gradings.
5. Ms. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents supports the
impugned judgement and states that the Tribunal was justified in observing
that having failed to lay any challenge to the gradings given in his ACRs for
the years 2006-2007, 2008 and 2009, the petitioner cannot be permitted to
seek quashment of the promotion order dated 23.03.2012, when after
appearing in the LDCE examination, he could not make it to the final list of
the selected candidates. Learned counsel clarifies that selection for the
LDCE examination was based on merits and not on seniority-cum-
suitability, which fact was duly taken note of by the Tribunal in para 4 of the
impugned order. She states that the petitioner had participated twice in the
LDCE examination and on both occasions, he could not succeed on the basis
of total marks obtained in the written examination and his service record
and it was a twin criteria applied by the respondents for granting promotion.
6. We see no justification for interfering with the impugned judgment
when admittedly, the petitioner did not lay a challenge to the gradings of his
ACRs for the relevant years, as is apparent from a perusal of the relief
prayed for in the O.A. That being the position, any allegations of
manipulation of his ACRs or those of some other candidates, who had been
promoted, would be of no assistance to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed in limine along with the
pending application.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
FEBRUARY 20, 2018
ap
