RANJU PRASAD Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the DPC recommendation dated 16.09.2009 had declared her as unfit for the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in respect of the panel year 2008-2009. The petitioner belongs to the Indian Postal Services of 1988 batch. It may be pointed out that in the year 2000-2001, the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in her scale of pay for three years without cumulative effect. We may also point out that the petitioner was on study leave for the years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The Tribunal, after considering all the circumstances, dismissed the petitioner's Original Application being O.A. No. 2724/2010 by virtue of the impugned order dated 22.09.2011.

(2.) The main plea which is being raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in respect of the year 2000-2001, the petitioner had been given the grading of "Very Good" by the reporting officer but, that grading was reduced to "Good" by the DPC while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this could not have been done by the DPC. Therefore, the ACR grading of "Very Good" for the year 2000-2001 ought to have been taken and if that were to be the case then the petitioner could not have been declared unfit inasmuch as she had received the grading "Very Good" in respect of the other years under consideration, namely, 2001-2002, 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008. We may point out, at this stage, that the years 2003-2004, and 2004-2005 were not within the purview for the purposes of considering the assessment of the petitioner inasmuch as she was on study leave and, in view of the DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989, these two years had to be excluded and the immediately preceding two years had to be taken into consideration. It is for this reason that years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 were taken into consideration along with the years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 by the DPC.

(3.) Now, the only question that requires consideration is as to whether the DPC could have downgraded the petitioner from "Very Good" to "Good" in respect of the year 2000-2001 for the purposes of considering her for promotion in the panel year 2008-2009.