The Petitioner Approached the Central Administrative Tribunal Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127490
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-19-2014
AppellantThe Petitioner Approached the Central Administrative Tribunal
RespondentUnion of India and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.18048-cat of 2003 date of decision: 19.02.2014 bachitar singh ..petitioner versus union of india and others ..respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice sanjay kishan kaul, chief justice. hon'ble mr.justice arun palli1 whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. 2. whether to be referred to the reporters or not ?. 3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. present : mr.mohd. salim, advocate, for the petitioner. mr.parveen goyal, advocate, for the respondents. **** sanjay kishan kaul c.j.(oral) the petitioner approached the central administrative tribunal, chandigarh bench, aggrieved of the departmental promotion committee not finding him fit for promotion to the post of accounts officer in september, 1996. the petitioner was, however, subsequently promoted to the post on 17.03.2001. the tribunal, however, dismissed the petition vide the impugned order dated 08.11.2001, which is now assailed before us. 2. on hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. it is not a case where d.p.c.did not consider the petitioner. there is no relevant material ignored by the d.p.c.and irrelevant material taken into consideration by the d.p.c.but it is an assessment based on the a.c.rs.of the petitioner. in this context, om dated 10.04.1989 of dopt in para 6.1.4 is providing benchmark of ‘above average’ for being found fit for promotion. the petitioner had an average grading for the year 1995-96 and was thus not found fit for promotion at that stage. 3. it is trite to say that it is not the function of the tribunal or the court to sit as an appellate authority over the d.p.c.and if all relevant material has been taken into account and parameters followed, the matter is not required to be interfered with as rightly held in the impugned order while sharma ravinder 2014.02.19 17:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document civil writ petition no.18048-cat of 2003 [2].relying upon the judgment of the hon’ble supreme court. when the petitioner was found fit, he was promoted as noticed aforesaid. no ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out. dismissed. (sanjay kishan kaul) chief justice (arun palli) judge1902.2014 ‘ravinder’ sharma ravinder 2014.02.19 17:27 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18048-CAT of 2003 Date of Decision: 19.02.2014 Bachitar Singh ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2.

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

Present : Mr.Mohd.

Salim, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.Parveen Goyal, Advocate, for the respondents.

**** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J.(Oral) The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, aggrieved of the Departmental Promotion Committee not finding him fit for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer in September, 1996.

The petitioner was, however, subsequently promoted to the post on 17.03.2001.

The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petition vide the impugned order dated 08.11.2001, which is now assailed before us.

2.

On hearing learned counsels for the parties and perusal of the record, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.

It is not a case where D.P.C.did not consider the petitioner.

There is no relevant material ignored by the D.P.C.and irrelevant material taken into consideration by the D.P.C.but it is an assessment based on the A.C.Rs.of the petitioner.

In this context, OM dated 10.04.1989 of DOPT in para 6.1.4 is providing benchmark of ‘above average’ for being found fit for promotion.

The petitioner had an average grading for the year 1995-96 and was thus not found fit for promotion at that stage.

3.

It is trite to say that it is not the function of the Tribunal or the Court to sit as an Appellate Authority over the D.P.C.and if all relevant material has been taken into account and parameters followed, the matter is not required to be interfered with as rightly held in the impugned order while Sharma Ravinder 2014.02.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Civil Writ Petition No.18048-CAT of 2003 [2].relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

When the petitioner was found fit, he was promoted as noticed aforesaid.

No ground to interfere in the impugned order is made out.

Dismissed.

(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE1902.2014 ‘ravinder’ Sharma Ravinder 2014.02.19 17:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document