R K SINGH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP 27045/2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the limited portion of the impugned order dated 29.10.2008 in O.A.No,431/2008 on the file of the 1st respondent herein, insofar as the concluding portion relating to continuance of the order of status quo till review of the case of the 2nd respondent herein by the DPC, quash the same as illegal and thereby enabling the respondents No,3 and 4 to promote the petitioner herein to the post of Member, Postal Services Board, pursuant to the recommendations dated 11.3.2008 made by the Departmental Promotion Committee convened by the UPSC for the said purpose. WP 27455/2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent Tribunal dated 29.10.2008 in O.A.No,431 of 2008 and quash the same.) W.P.No,27455 of 2008 has been filed by the Union of India challenging the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No,431 of 2008 which was filed by the present respondent No,2 Indira Krishnakumar.

(2.) THE grievance of the present respondent No,2 was to the effect that in the previous years, "very good" had been indicated in the ACR, whereas for the year 2004-2005, in the ACR it was indicated as "good" which amounted to downgrading of the ACR, and therefore, such entry should have been treated as an adverse entry and should have been communicated to the respondent No,2 (applicant before the Tribunal). THE further question raised was that while considering the question of promotion, such uncommunicated adverse entry should not have been taken into account. THE stand of the department was to the effect that the entry "good" cannot be considered as an adverse entry and therefore, there was no requirement for communicating such entry, and the DPC which consisted of a Member of the UPSC and the Secretary of the Department, had considered all the entries in proper perspective, and therefore, the denial of promotion was justified.

(3.) WE have heard Mr.Ravindran, learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner in WP 27455/2008, Mr.M.Sekar, Counsel for the petitioner in WP 27045/2008 and Mr.Karthik Mukundan for the second respondent in both the writ petitions. The other private party namely respondent No,4 S.Samant has not entered appearance in spite of service of notice.