BINAY KUMAR Vs. GOVT OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, at the time of filing of this writ petition working as a Director (Personnel) of the respondent No. 2 Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. (hereinafter call Power Grid) instituted this petition for the reliefs of, calling for his ACRs for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 & 1997-98 and for expunging the adverse entries by the respondent no.3 in the said ACRs. Significantly, no consequential relief has been claimed in the petition. The writ petition came up before this Court first on 11th October, 1999 when the counsel for the respondent no.1 Union of India and the counsel for the respondent no.2 Power Grid and the respondent no.3 appeared on advance notice and stated that the petitioner had already been suspended from the post of Director (Personnel) of Power Grid and this petition was filed in an attempt to stall the proceedings already initiated against the petitioner. It was further pointed out that the ACRs for the period in question were not adverse and the overall remark given was "Good". The respondent no.2 has since filed a counter affidavit in which it has inter alia been stated that the ACRs of the petitioner for the years aforesaid were not adverse and thus the question of communicating the same to the petitioner did not arise. It was also pleaded that while at the time of the ACRs aforesaid the petitioner was working as the General Manager of Power Grid, but on the basis of the said ACRs his name was sponsored for consideration and selection for the post of Director (Personnel) and the petitioner was appointed as the Director (Personnel) and hence the writ petition is misconceived. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has suppressed from the petition that he had, at the time of filing of the petition, been suspended from the post of Director (Personnel). The respondent no.3 also filed a counter affidavit stating that he had filled up the ACRs objectively and since none of the said ACRs were rated as "Not Satisfactory", the same as per the rules of Power Grid were not required to be communicated to the petitioner.

(2.) Rule was issued in this petition on 10th August, 2000. Thereafter the petition was dismissed for non prosecution and restored on the applications of the petitioner. On 28th January, 2010, the counsel for the respondent informed that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation and thus the present petition had become infructuous. The counsel for the petitioner took time to take instructions but has been seeking adjournments thereafter. The counsel has today informed that the petitioner wants to continue with the present petition. It was enquired from the counsel for the petitioner as to what will be achieved/benefited by the petitioner through the present petition. The counsel is unable to reply. He only contends that since the petition has been filed, the ACRs in question be called to this Court and this Court should conduct an inquiry as to whether the said ACRs have been filled by the respondent no.3 objectively and/or with mala fide intent as averred in the petition. Attention of the counsel for the petitioner is invited to Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar, 2001 7 SCC 657 laying that the courts do not decide matters which are only of academic interest on the facts of a particular case. Recently, another five judge bench of the Supreme Court in Ramdas Athawale Vs. Union of India has again held that where the issue raised is purely hypothetical one and there is no existing lis, the court will not decide matters which are only of academic interest. The counsel is still unable to reply as to what purpose the decision of the present petition would serve except may be to assuage the ego of the petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, the counsel for the respondents no.2&3 has reiterated that the petition was filed with mala fide intention and to delay the proceedings pursuant to suspension of the petitioner from the post of Director (Personnel). It is also contended that the petitioner had filed several other petitions with respect to the said order of suspension and termination and all of which petitions have been dismissed and the present petition is only intended to harass the respondent no.3. It is also contended that the question of the ACRs for the years aforesaid being adverse does not arise in as much as on the basis of the said ACRs only the petitioner was promoted from the post of General Manager to the post of Director (Personnel). It is contended that the inquiry sought by the petitioner cannot be undertaken.