UNION OF INDIA Vs. V PITCHANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A search on the internet would reveal that two decisions of the Supreme Court have proved to be a lawyers' delight and a Judges' despair. They are the decisions in Adalat Prasad's case pertaining to the power of a Magistrate to recall a summon of appearance and the second is the decision in Dev Dutt's case. The two decisions have generated enormous litigation, to the happiness of the lawyers and the despair of the Judges.

(2.) Instant writ petition concerns the applicability of law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as Dev Dutt v. Union of India and Ors., 2008 8 SCC 725.

(3.) The concept of an ACR grading which was adverse to the employee concerned; adverse being as understood in common parlance was held to be of a kind which requires the same to be communicated to the employee concerned with a right to make a representation and the representation to be decided. This was the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, 1996 2 SCC 363 What happens if the ACR grading is not adverse as understood in common English language but has an adverse consequence on the promotion of the Government Servant concerned with reference to the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark is 'Very Good' and an employee is graded 'Good'; notwithstanding the grade 'Good' would not be adverse in English language, but with reference to the benchmark to be achieved, the ACR grading 'Good' would certainly have an adverse impact.