1. The applicant of this O.A. has prayed for issue of directions to promote him to the selection grade of the Junior Administrative Grade w.e.f. 1st July 1995 and thereafter to give him further promotion in the Sr. Administrative Grade w.e.f. the date the officers junior to him were promoted to the Sr. Administrative Grade. It has also been prayed that the original record containing the proceedings of Selection Committee be also summonned. A further prayer is to quash the adverse material if any on record which has not been communicated to the applicant and has formed the basis of his supersession to the selection grade and to the Sr. Administrative Grade.
2. Pleading on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. The applicant belongs to 1981 batch of the Indian Railway Traffic Service. He was promoted in 1986 to the Sr. time scale and on 17th October, 1991, was promoted further to the Jr. Administrative Grade.
The applicant however, could not be placed in the selection grade of Rs. 14,300-18,300 as he was not found fit for selection grade by the Selection Committee which met in April, 1996 May, 1997, April, 1998, August, 1999, January, 2001, August, 2001, September, 2002 and March, 2003. The applicant also was considered for promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade by the Selection Committee which met in January, 2002 and again in December, 2002 but he was not found fit by the Selection Committee for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade.
Certain officers junior to the applicant were placed in the selection grade w.e.f. 1st July, 1995 by order dated 24.4.1996 passed in pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee which met.
on 9th April, 1996. Thereafter on the basis of recommendations made by the Selection Committee which met subsequently in May, 1997, April 1998, August, 1999, January, 2001, August, 2001, September, 2002 and March, 2003, officers belonging to the Junior batches were also placed in the selection grade but the applicant having not been found fit was not placed in the selection grade. Similarly, on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee which met in January, 2002 and again in December, 2002. Certain officers junior to the applicant were promoted to the Sr. Administrative Grade but the applicant having been considered and having not been found fit by the Selection Committee was not promoted to the Sr. Administrative Grade also. Thus the applicant continues to be in the junior administrative grade whereas a number of officers junior to him have been placed not only in the selection grade but have also been promoted to the Sr.
Administrative grade.
4. The case of the applicant is that there was no adverse material against him and no such material was ever communicated to him. Further it was contended on behalf of the applicant that his case had never been kept in the sealed cover and no disciplinary proceedings whatsoever were pending against him. It was according submitted that there was no justification for bypassing the applicant by a series of Selection Committees which met in different years from giving him selection grade and further there was also no justification for ignoring him for promotion to the senior administrative grade. In this regard it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that for placing an officer in the selection grade, no bench mark is required and for placement of an officer in the selection grade from the Jr.
Administrative Grade, the criterion followed is seniority-cum-fitness.
Since there was nothing against the applicant, it was argued that he could not be ignored for placement in the selection grade. In this regard our attention was drawn to some of the instructions and circulars of the Railway Board relied upon on behalf of the applicant.
On behalf of the applicant the following circular letters of the Railway Board have been relied upon: (d) Internal guidelines for minimum bench mark circulated by the Railway Board on 25.5.93 (g) Guidelines for writing ACRs as contained in the format of the ACR 5. Reference was also made on behalf of the applicant to the judgment and order passed by this Tribunal on 26.5.2003 in T.A. No. 1/2002 (O.A.No. 1135/1997) in the case of Dr. J.P. Srivastava v. Union of India and Ors. and in particular to the case law cited and relied upon by this Tribunal in the case of Dr. J.P. Srivastava (supra).
6. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted that an officer becomes eligible for placement in the selection grade which is a non-functional grade on completion of 13 years of Group A service.
According to the respondents, the applicant was duly considered for placement in the selection grade by successive Selection Committees but he was not found fit for selection grade on the basis of his lacklustre performance. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that an officer only has a right for consideration for promotion. Thus it was argued that the applicant was duly considered by successive DPCs for placement in the selection grade but having not been found fit, he cannot have any legitimate claim for being placed in the selection grade. For the same reason, the applicant was not promoted to the Sr.
Administrative Grade also by the DPCs which met in January, 2002 and again in December, 2002. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the mere fact that no adverse remarks were communicated to the applicant and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him, would not ipso-facto confer upon him the right of placement in the selection grade and further right of promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade, bench mark of very good is prescribed. It was further submitted that the Selection Committee is not guided merely by the assessment as reflected in the ACRs of the officers concerned but the Selection Committee makes its own assessment of suitability of the officers for promotion based on their over all performance as reflected from the ACRs. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the applicant has not forfeited his right either for placement in the selection grade or for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade and that he will continue to be considered in future for placement in the selection grade as well as for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade. On behalf of the respondents the case law relied upon by this Tribunal in the order and judgment dated 10th October, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 523/98 in the case of K.K. Bajpai v. Union of India and Ors. has once again been referred to.
7. On behalf of the respondents the maintainability of the O.A. has also been questioned on two grounds. In the first place it has been argued that plural remedies have been claimed in violation of Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 in as much as by amendment application moved under M.P. No. 2776/2002 on 20.9.2002, relief with regard to the promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade has also been claimed. Thus it was submitted that the original prayer in the present O.A. was only for placement in the selection grade of Jr.
Administrative Grade and the relief claimed by the amended O.A. for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade constituted a separate relief unconnected with the original prayer because an officer becomes eligible after putting in requisite number of years of service for consideration for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade irrespective of the fact whether selection grade has or has not been granted to him. Secondly it was argued that the O.A. is not maintainable also on the ground that the same was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 31 of the AT. Act, 1985.
8. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made on behalf of the parties. As regards the question of maintainability of the O.A. on the ground of limitation, we are of the opinion that the O.A. is within the limitation because in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated in Para 4.8 that the representation dated 24.4.96 was never received in the office of the respondents and hence there was no occasion (sic) any decision on the said representation. In the same para of the counter, it is stated that the representation dated 7.5.99 was received and the same was examined.
However, no reply was sent to the applicant on this representation because the representation dated 7.5.99 was directly addressed to the Railway Board and was not routed through proper channel. In Para 4.11 of the counter, it has been stated that the representations dated 13.6.97 and 15.9.99 were not received in the office of the respondents.
Since the first representation received in the office of the respondents and examined by the respondents was the representation dated 7.5.99, the limitation in our opinion has to be counted from the representation dated 7.5.99. If limitation is reckoned from this date, the O.A. is clearly within limitation and cannot be said to be barred by limitation, as the O.A itself was filed on 16th July, 1999. As already stated the representations dated 24.4.96 and 13.6.97 referred to in Paras 4.8 and 4.11 of the C.A. having not been received by the respondents, have to be ignored because it is doubtful whether these representations were at all sent by the applicant to the respondents.
Besides we find that the O.A. had been admitted as early as on 20th July, 1999 and further the applicant had been ignored for placement in the selection grade repeatedly by successive DPCs held in April 1996, May, 1997, April, 1998, August, 1999, January, 2001 and August, 2001, September 2002 and March, 2003. Thus the cause of action for the applicant continued right from April, 1996 till March 2003. For all these reasons we hold that the O.A. cannot be said to be barred by limitation and hence we take the view that the O.A. is within the limitation.
9. As regards non-maintainability of the O.A. on the ground of plural reliefs, we are of the opinion that the claim made by the applicant by amendment application filed under M.P. No. 2776/2002 dated 20th September, 2002 claiming the relief of promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade does not amount to claiming plural reliefs and as a matter of fact the relief claimed with regard to the promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade is to all intents and purposes consequential to the relief for placement in the selection grade. Thus the reliefs claimed in the present O.A. cannot be considered as plural reliefs and are therefore not hit by Rule 10 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
The O.A. is therefore, maintainable on this score also.
10. The records relating to DPCs which considered the applicant for selection grade and for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade and the relevant ACRs of the applicant were summoned in this case which have been produced and retained by the bench for perusal. The ACR folder of the applicant contains ACRs upto the years 1999-2000. The ACRs. subsequent to the year 1999-2000 have not been furnished. On a perusal of these ACRs, the position which emerges is shown below in a tabular form:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Year Rep.
Rev. Accep.
Adverse Fitness for Officer Officer Officer If Any Promotion-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------91 -92 V. Good V. GOOD V. GOOD NIL Fit by all the92-93 Good Good Good Adverse Fit by all93-94 Average Average Average Adverse Not fit94-95 Average Average Good Nil Fit by Report.95-96 V. Good Good Good Nil Fit by all Officers96-97 V. Good Retd.
V.Good Nil Fit by all Officers97-98 Out-standing Average Average Adverse Not fit(17.6.97 remarks by reviewingto recorded and accepting29.9.97) by Review.
Officer97-98 V. Good Retd.
Retd.
Nil Fit(7.10.9798-99 Average Retd.
Retd.
Adverse Not fit99-2000 Out-Standing V.Good V. Good Nil Fit by all Officers.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. The above tabular statement will show that the applicant was given adverse remarks in the years 92-93, 93-94, 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97) and in the year 98-99, In the year 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97), the following adverse remarks were recorded in the ACR of the applicant by the Reviewing Authority in part V of the ACR which were communicated to him: "He did not apply himself properly. The officer is careless, casual and indifferent to work. Irresponsible. Has misplaced and perverted intelligence." 12. The applicant made a representation against the above adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97) and his representation dated 8th April, 1999 was rejected by the Competent Authority on 16.4.99. The applicant thereafter, again represented to the Member Traffic, Railway Board which does not appear to have been decided so far. Thus the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for the year 97-98 have not yet been expunged.
13. Adverse remarks recorded in the other ACRs of the applicant i.e. in the ACRs for the years 92-93, 93-94 and 98-99 were never communicated to the applicant. The adverse remarks recorded in the year 92-93 are as follows: "He is diligent officer, upright but needs to be more open minded with nack for solving problems instead of creating them".
For the year 93-94, the following adverse remarks were recorded by the reporting officer: "Sri Bhardwaj is intelligent but requires constant chasing even for performing routine duties." For the year 98-99, the following adverse remarks were recorded by the reporting officer: "He is a very intelligent officer but authority and power delegated are not utilised for constructive and productive work. Defects in working has been adviced verbally and through notes." Thus it would be seen that the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97) have not been expunged so far despite the applicant's representation. As against this the adverse remarks for 92-93, 93-94 and 98-99 were never communicated to the applicant denying him an opportunity to represent against the adverse remarks recorded in these years. The discussion in the paragraph following would clearly reveal that uncommunicated adverse remarks have to be ignored and have not to be read while considering an officer for promotion. Therefore, the adverse remarks recorded for the years 92-93, 93-94 and 98-99 have to be ignored while considering the applicant for placement in the selection grade and for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade.
14. It will be useful to refer to the circulars of the Railway Board relied upon on behalf of the applicant. The circular letter of 26.9.89 provides that the Selection Committee will assess the suitability of the officers for promotion on the basis of their service records with particular reference to the five preceding years. This circular further provides that the Selection Committee will not be guided merely by the over all assessment if any that may be recorded in the ACRs. but will make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the ACRs. This circular also provides that for the purpose of promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade, the bench mark shall be very good and for this purpose, the Selection Committee will grade the officers as very good or outstanding. It is to be noted that this circular of 26.9.89 does not prescribe any bench mark for the selection grade. The instruction dated 15.5.87 relied upon on behalf of the applicant prescribes the point system which was prevalent at that point of time and which now stand superseded by the issue of the subsequent circular letter of 26.9.89 the guidelines for the DPC for minimum bench mark dated 25.5.93 lays down that the supersession will be restricted within the batch only. The instruction dated 28.8.96 contained in the Railway Board's confidential D.O. provides that reasons should be recorded in the relevant column of the report to justify that the officer concerned is not considered suitable for promotion to the next grade. These instructions also provide that if any officer is not considered suitable for promotion to the next grade, such a grading should be supported by adequate remarks pointing towards the short comings in the officer's performance. These instructions also provide that the adverse remarks will have to be communicated to the officer to enable him to improve his performance. The instructions contained in the letter dated 10.6.93 relate to non-gazetted employees and hence these instructions are not applicable in the case of the applicant.
14A. As regards the instructions of 3rd June, 2002 relied upon on behalf of the applicant, the said instructions contain the revised procedure for promotion to the Administrative Grades in the Railways.
This circular letter is addressed to the General Managers and Director Generals of RDSO and RSC and was issued by the Railway Board. This circular letter provides that the bench mark for promotion from the senior scale to the Junior Administrative Grade and to selection grade shall be good whereas the bench mark for Sr. Administrative Grade and Higher Administrative Grade shall be very good. This circular letter of 3rd June, 2002 supersedes earlier instructions of the Railway Board dated 26th September, 1989: This circular letter would therefore be relevant for the DPCs held after 3rd June, 2002. In so far as the applicant is concerned, this circular letter of the Railway Board would be relevant for the DPC held on 26th December, 2002 for promotion of officers to the Sr. Administrative Grade, in which the applicant was considered but not found fit.
15. On behalf of the respondents it was submitted during the course of hearing that the judgments and arguments relied upon by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 523/1998 decided on 10th October, 2000 in the case of K.K.Bajpai are relied upon in the case of the applicant of the present O.A.also. On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the judgments relied upon by this Tribunal in T.A. No. 1/2002 (O.A. No.1135/97) decided on 26.5.2003 in case of Dr. J.P. Srivastava are relied upon.
16. The questions to be decided in this O.A. are whether the applicant could have been ignored for placement in the selection grade by the DPCs held in April, 1996 and May, 1997. The other question to be decided is whether the applicant could have been ignored for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade by the DPCs held in January, 2002 and in December, 2002.
17. Coming to the question of granting selection grade to the applicant, we notice that for the DPC which met in April, 1996, the relevant ACRs were for the years 91-92, 92-93, 93-94, 94-95 and 95-96.
Similarly for the DPC which met in May, 1997, the relevant ACRs were for the years 92-93 to 96-97. It is an admitted position that the ACR for the year 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97) contained adverse remarks which were duly communicated to the applicant and which have not yet been expunged despite the applicant's representation pending before the Rly.
Board. Therefore, these adverse remarks would be relevant for the DPC which met in April, 1998. For considering the applicant's case for placement in the selection grade, the Selection Committees which met in April, 1998 and in May, 1997, had before them the ACRs for the years 91-92 to 96-97. In the years 92-93 and 93-94, the ACRs of the applicant contained adverse remarks which were never communicated to him. In the year 93-94, the applicant was also graded as average and not fit for promotion. In the ACR for the year 92-93, despite some uncommunicated adverse remarks, the applicant was graded as good and fit for promotion. The subsequent ACR for the year 93-94, containing uncommunicated adverse remarks and grading the applicant as not fit for promotion cannot be taken into consideration for assessing the applicant's suitability for placement in the selection grade. The other five ACRs for the years 91-92, 92-93 and for the years 94-95, 95-96 and 96-97 were either good or very good and had graded the applicant as fit for promotion in all these years. As a matter of fact, from 91-92 to 96-97, the applicant had earned two very good ACRs, three Good ACRs and one average ACR. Admittedly the prescribed bench mark for placement in the selection grade was two good ACRs out of the preceding five years.
In so far as the Selection Committee which met in April, 1996 is concerned, the applicant was graded as very good in 91-92 and good in 92-93, 94-95 and 95-96 and also fit (sic) these years. Similary with reference to the Selection Committee which met in May, 1997, the applicant was graded as very good and good in 92-93, 94-95 and 95-96.
Thus for the Selection Committee which met in May, 1997 and for the Selection Committee which met in April, 96, the applicant fully fulfilled the criterion of bench mark having earned more than two good ACRs. The adverse remarks for the years 92-93 and 93-94 having not been communicated to the applicant have to be ignored.
18. In the case of Pallam Raju v. Union of India and Ors. decided by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal (O.A. No. 777/93) it was held that an average entry cannot be considered as adverse and hence need not be communicated although the same can be taken into account by the Selection Committee for determining an officers suitability for promotion. However, a different view has been taken in some other subsequent decisions cited on behalf of the respondents. In the case of R.S. Dash v. U.O.I, 1986 (Supplement) SCC 618+1987(2) SLJ 56 (SC) and in the case of Union of India v. Mohal Lal Kapoor, 1974 SCC (L&S) 5, the Apex Court took the view that where merit is the main criterion the selection of juniors would not amount to supersession of the Sr.
Officer who has not been found fit on a comparative assessment of inter-se merit. In the case of SBI v. Md. Myuddin, (1987) 4 SCC 486=1987(3) SLJ 161 (SC), State of M.P. v. Srikant Chephekar, (1992) 4 SCC 689=1992(3) SLJ 73 (SC), UPSC and Ors. v. Surendra Pd. Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 64 and Anil Katiyar v. Union of India, 1997(1) SCC 280=1997(1) SU 145 (SC), the Apex Court took the view that recommendations of the Selection Committee should ordinarly not be interfered with by the Courts unless the same are found to be vitiated by malafides or are biased. In all these cases, the Apex Court held that Courts/Tribunals cannot assume the function of the DPC for evaluating the service records and directing promotion on that basis.
It will be seen that in the above decision, the question of supersession of an officer without communicating adverse remarks was not involved. The question involved in all these cases was also not whether an adverse or good grading should be communicated even though the said ACR did not contain any adverse remarks. Thus these decisions cited on behalf of the respondents are not quite relevant in so far as the placement of the applicant in the selection grade is concerned.
19. On behalf of the applicant reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, 1979 (1) SLR 804=1981(2) SLJ 457 (SC) extracts of which are reproduced below: "The principle is well settled that in accordance with the rules of natural justice, an adverse report in the confidential report cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless it is communicated to the person concerned".
20. The above principle was relied upon by the Apex Court in the subsequent decision in Amar Kant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984 SC 531. Like wise Allahabad High Court in the case of Kripashankar Shukla v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1999(3) UPLBEC 2399 observed as under: "An uncommunicated adverse remark cannot as a general rule be acted upon by the employer to the prejudice of the employee. The rules and administrative instructions generally put an obligation on the authorities to communicate, the adverse remarks to the employee to enable him to make a representation. Even if the rules or administrative instructions are silent on this aspect, the principles of natural justice require such a communication."State of M.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Mishra and Anr.
(1997) 4 SCC 7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court made the following observations: "Before framing an opinion to make adverse entries in confidential report, the Reporting/Reviewing Officers should share the information which is not apart of the record with the officer concerned. This amounts to an opportunity given to the erring/currupt officer to correct the errors of judgment, conduct, integrity or currupt proclivity."Sukhdeo v. Commissioner Amravati Division (1996) SCC (L&S) 1141 = 1996(2) SLJ 3 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. v. Prabhat Chand Jain and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 363 took the view that if the grading in the ACR is toned down from very good to good, that may not ordinarily be an adverse entry since both are positive gradings. The Apex Court, however, held that the authority toning down the grading should record reasons for such down grading and inform the official concerned of the down grading in the form of an advice. The Apex Court further observed as under: "Even a positive confidential entry in a given case can perilously be adverse and to say that an adverse entry should always be quantitatively damaging may not be true." 23. Thus the Apex Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam took the view that a positive entry like good may damage the promotional prospects of an officer and hence needs to be communicated. In the case of Udai Krishna v. Union of India, the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal observed as under: "We are inclined to agree that a good or average grading in the ACR though not per se adverse would assume the character of adverse remarks in the context of the requirement of bench mark of very good to ualify for empanelment for promotion." 24. A similar view was taken by the Bangalore Bench in the case of Smt.
G. Chenkamalam v. Union of India, 1998(2) SLJ (CAT) 334. In a recent judgment delivered by the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in Charan Singh Azad v. State of Maharashtra, 2001(1) SLJ (CAT) 97 it was held that a grading which was below the bench mark-amounts to an adverse ACR and hence is required to be conveyed. It was also held that down grading of an entry to below the bench mark by the Reviewing/Accepting Authority is also required to be conveyed as such down grading is likely to adversely affect the promotional prospects of an officer. In the case of Charan Singh Azad, the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal duly considered the decision in the case of Udai Krishna delivered by the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal and in the case of G. Chankamalam of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal. The decision of the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Charan Singh Azad (supra), decision of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Udai Krishna v. Union of India (supra) and of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal in the case of G. Chankamalam v. Union of India were considered in the case of Ram Babu v. Union of India by the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal, In its decision delivered on 31st March, 2000, after considering these cases and a number of other cases, the Bombay Bench in the case of Ram Babu v. Union of India, 2001 (2) SLJ (CAT) 9 held that a grading below the prescribed bench mark amounts to an adverse entry as it will definitely affect the promotional prospects of an officer. The Bombay Bench of this Tribunal further held that the grading which is less than the prescribed bench mark should not be acted upon unless the said entry is communicated to the officer concerned.
25. Thus on the basis of the case law discussed above, the irresistible conclusion which follows is that the adverse entry recorded in the ACRs of the applicant for the years 92-93, 93-94 have to be ignored for purposes of considering him for placement in the selection grade. On the same analogy, the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR for 98-99 have also to be ignored for purposes of considering the applicant for placement in the selection grade and for promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade. It is accordingly directed that the respondents shall convene a review DPC for reviewing the recommendations of the DPC made in April, 1996 and in May, 1997 and shall reconsider the applicant for placement in the selection grade after ignoring the adverse remarks for the years 92-93 and 93-94 as these adverse remarks were never communicated to the applicant. In case the applicant is found fit for selection grade by the said review DPCs of April, 1996 and May, 1997, he shall be placed in the selection grade with all consequential benefits with effect from the date his immediate junior was placed in the selection grade.
26. As regards, the applicant's promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade, the DPCs in which the applicant was considered and not found fit for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade were held in January, 2000 and in December, 2002. The five ACRs considered by these two DPCs were for the years 96-97 to 2000-2001 and for the years 97-98 to 2001-2002. Out of these five ACRs, the ACR for the year 97-98 contained adverse remarks which were duly communicated to the applicant and in respect of which his representation was still pending before the Member Traffic, Railway Board. These adverse remarks for the year 97-98 have therefore not been expunged so far. Further the ACR for the year 98-99 graded the applicant as average and also contained uncommunicated adverse remarks. This ACR however, was not communicated to the applicant. Therefore, the ACR for the year 98-99 could not be taken into account for considering the applicant for promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade, in terms of the various decisions referred to in Paragraphs 19 to 24 above.
This is without prejudice to the fact that the ACR for the year 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97), recording adverse remarks against the applicant still survives having not been expunged in either of the representations made by the applicant. Thus in so far as the applicant's promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade is concerned, the applicant would not qualify in our opinion for promotion to the Sr.
Administrative Grade in the light of the adverse remarks for the year 97-98. If and when these remarks are empugned the applicant shall be considered for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade also after ignoring the ACR for the year 98-99 which contained uncommunicated adverse remarks and graded the applicant below the bench mark as average.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, the O.A. is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The respondents shall convene within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, a review DPC for reviewing the recommendations of the DPC held in April, 1996 and in May, 1997 and shall consider the applicant for placement in the selection grade with effect from the date his immediate junior was so placed. This is however, without prejudice to the applicant's right for consideration for selection grade by the Selection Committee which might meet in the year 2003 and in subsequent years.
(b) If and when the adverse remarks recorded for the year 97-98 (17.6.97 to 29.9.97) are expunged the applicant shall be considered for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade w.e.f. the date of promotion of the immediate junior after ignoring the ACR for the year 98-99 by a review DPC which shall review the recommendations of the DPC held in January, 2002 and in December, 2002. This is however, without prejudice to the applicant's right for consideration for promotion to the Sr. Administrative Grade by the Selection Committees which might meet in the year 2003 and in subsequent years .
28. The O.A. is disposed of in terms of the above directions without any order as to costs.