SATYA PRAKASH VASISHT Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING a checkered career with the Delhi Police, troubles commenced for the petitioner at the very inception after petitioner was selected for appointment as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police in the year 1978. He had to litigate inasmuch as the petitioner was declared medically unfit. Petitioner's challenge to being declared medially unfit resulted in an adjudication in his favour requiring Delhi Police to induct the petitioner as a Sub-Inspector (Executive) with retrospective date of 1978 with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE second round of litigation which the petitioner had to fight was when 337 posts of Sub-Inspector were upgraded to that of Inspector.

(3.) THE Tribunal noted that as of said date law declared was that a below benchmark ACR grading was not to be intimated to the appraisee and only when there was an adverse entry in the ACR was the same required to be intimated to the appraisee. The Tribunal noted that not every Sub-Inspector as per seniority was entitled to be upgraded as an Inspector inasmuch as suitability had to be determined and for which the Tribunal noted that a DPC was constituted which considered preceding five years' ACR gradings and adopting the benchmark that the person concerned should have minimum three 'Good' ACR gradings in the said preceding five years. The Tribunal noted that the preceding five years would be the years 1989-1990, 1990- 1991, 1991-1992, 1992-1993 and 1993-1994. The Tribunal noted that in the preceding three years i.e. the year 1991-1992 till the year 1993-1994 the petitioner had consistently been graded 'Average'. Noting that in the preceding year the petitioner was graded 'Very Good' and in the next preceding year as 'Outstanding', the Tribunal held that the decision not to upgrade the petitioner to the post of Inspector could not be faulted.