RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was first appointed Peon on 28.12.1979. He was thereafter promoted Junior Computer Operator on adhoc basis on 24.10.1980 and was later regularised on the post on 28.8.1986. The post of Junior Computer Operator was subsequently redesignated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1150- 1500 and he came to hold it and was shown seniormost in the seniority list, dated 1.5.1996.

(2.) It all started when petitioner's juniors were promoted to the post of DEO- Grade B by order dated 15.1.1997. He felt aggrieved and made series of repre- sentations which were rejected by respondents. He thereafter filed OA No. 2488/97 before CAT claiming promotion to Grade-B post on the plea that under Recruitment and Promotion Rules this post was to be filled up 100% by promotion on seniority- cum-merit basis and he being seniormost was to be promoted to it as a matter of course. He also complained that his representations were mechanically rejected. He accordingly prayed for quashment of orders, rejecting his representation And his promotion from 15.1.1997 when his juniors were promoted.

(3.) Respondents opposed this, amongst others, on the ground that petitioner was considered for promotion by the DPC in accordance with the relevant, instruc- tions/guidelines issued by Department of Personal and Training but was found unfit for promotion as he had earned only one 'Very Good' ACR for one year (199"1-92) and the 'Average' entry for remaining four years. It was also contended by them that 'Average' entry was not an adverse entry and was not required to be communicated to him. The Tribunal relying upon its Full Bench Judgment in Shri V. Pallann Raju v. Union, ruled that 'Average' entry being not an adverse entry was not required to be communicated to him but was liable to be considered for promotion and that DPC had validly found him unfit for promotion.