M PARAMASIVAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order under challenge:This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 9.9.2004 in O.A.No.213 of 2004 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras bench dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. THE writ petitioner had sought before the Tribunal a prayer seeking to set aside the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the first respondent rejecting his plea to consider the effect of expunction of adverse remarks in the ACRs relating to the petitioner as regards his alleged entitlement to be empanelled for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. II. Relevant facts in brief:

(2.) THE facts require a further dilation. At the threshold of promotion, when the petitioner was working as Senior Section Engineer, to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, a regular DPC was convened for assessing the suitability of the petitioner to the promotion post. THE extant instructions were 70% of the posts were to be filled up by seniority-cum-suitability and 30% of the posts were to be filled up by limited departmental competitive examination. THE petitioner vied for competition with others in the 70% quota. Out of 70%, the candidates were required to appear for written examination and those who secured 90/150 in the examination were subjected to viva-voce test. 25 marks had been assigned for viva-voce, 25 marks for record of service and the candidates had to secure a minimum of 30/50. Out of 25 marks allotted for record of service the candidate had to necessarily secure 15 marks from the last five years, on which alone depended the eligibility to be placed in the panel for selection.III. Importance of grading in ACR stated:

(3.) IT is borne out from the records which were produced before us that in the year 1998-99, the petitioner had been assigned two marks corresponding to assessment as average and for 2000-2001 he had been assigned 3 marks corresponding to assessment as good. The ACRs revealed that the reporting officer has graded him as "very good" for the year 2000-2001, while the reviewing officer making the remarks against the career has endorsed/approved the assessment given by the reporting officer, but downgraded him as "good". IT is argued by the counsel for the petitioner that if he was agreeing with the assessment of the reporting officer, such an act must be with reference to his grading and consequently, there could not have been a change in assessment from "very good" to "good", and if such a down grading has to be done, it should have been done as per the instructions referred to above and the reasons for such down grading should have been given. IT is clear from the remarks made by the reviewing officer that there is no such reasoning. Similarly, if for the year 1998-99, he had been originally assessed as "average", the expunction of adverse remarks subsequently could not have happened without a modicum of effect on the grading.