PRABHAKAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition was filed, inter alia, by the petitioners, as there were thirteen vacancies of Superintending Engineers (Electrical) in the CPWD. Thirty senior most Executive Engineers (Electrical) who had at least five years' regular service as Executive Engineer (E) were considered and a panel dated 15 1.2002 of thirteen names was prepared including two petitioners. The petitioners had assailed the merit list as the DPC did not follow the criteria of merit but adopted the criteria of fit and unfit' which was prescribed by the revised instructions of 8th February, 2002. The grievance of the petitioners was that they had all along been graded as 'Outstanding' and had the DPC followed the criteria in vogue prior to the revised instructions on the subject issued by the DOPT vide their OM dated 8.2.2002, they would have been placed at the top of the panel drawn by the DPC. The respondents took the stand before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that the DPC was held on 21.11.2001 much before the issue of the aforesaid OM dated 8.2.2002. The stand of the respondent was that the DPC of 21.11.2001 was held strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down in para 6.3.1 (v) of the old DPC instructions.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 had all 'Outstanding' ACRs and petitioner no.2 had five 'Outstanding' and one 'Very Good'. However, the DPC adopted the non-selection criterion whereby 'Outstanding' was converted to 'Very Good' without any bench mark. It was also contended that one of the persons who was also selected, i.e. Mr.P.D. Agnihotri had ACR for 1995 - 'Good1, 1995 to 1996 'Average', 1996-97 'Very Good', 1997-98 'Very Good', 1998-99 'Very Good' and for 1999-2000" 'Good' has been rated as 'Very Good' and was also shown in the select list of thirteen persons at serial no.2 whereas petitioners who were all along getting 'Outstanding' were shown at the bottom of the merit list.

(3.) It was contended before us by learned counsel for the petitioners that the main grievance of the petitioners was that the DPC mechanically treated all 'Outstanding' ACRs as 'Very Good'. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was with regard to the exercise undertaken by the UPSC of changing the criterion illegally from selection to non-selection.