RAJIV SETH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has impugned the orders dated 5.6.2007 (Page 36) whereby he has been intimated that even after holding the Review DPC as directed by this Tribunal earlier in OA No. 558/1998, he was not found fit for inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion to the post of Assistant Commercial Manager, Group B, which was initially published vide GM (P)'s letter No. E/254/4 -Comml/Selection/96(I) dated 27.4.1998. The applicant has also impugned the order dated 1.1.2008 (Page 38) whereby his appeal against the findings and recommendations of the Review DPC has been rejected. The validity of the said two orders has been questioned in this OA with all consequential benefits. This being the second round of litigation, there is no disputed question on facts. The pleadings in this case are voluminous consisting of the OA filed by the applicant, Counter reply filed by the respondents, Rejoinder filed by the applicant, Reply to rejoinder reply filed by the respondents, Supplementary rejoinder reply filed by the applicant, Reply to supplementary Rejoinder Reply filed by the respondents. However, the relevant facts are very limited and are as follows.

(2.) THE applicant was initially appointed as Commercial Apprentice on 14.3.1991 in North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur and was confirmed as Senior Commercial Inspector on 19.6.1993. Thereafter, the applicant was selected and promoted as Senior Commercial Inspector on 14.2.1996. In November/December, 1996, the respondents issued an advertisement/notice for filling of 3 general posts of Assistant Commercial Manager, Group B, under 30% LDCE quota. As per rules and instructions in vogue, the selection process consisted of (i) written test consisting of two professional papers of 150 marks each (ii) medical examination (iii) record of service and viva voce test of 25 marks each. In pursuance to the said notification a written test was held on 21.12.1997 and the applicant qualified the same alongwith respondent Nos. 5 and 6 vide result dated 17.3.1998. It may be noted here that the applicant had secured the highest mark in the said written examination. Thereafter, the applicant was declared medically fit. However, in record of service, the Selection Board/DPC examined the ACRs of the applicant for the years 1993 -94, 1994 -95, 1995 -96 and 1996 -97 and awarded him 17.5 marks as per the rules and norms prevalent for the said purpose. The selection Board/DPC also awarded 06 marks to the applicant in the viva voce test which is meant for assessing personality addresses, Leadership qualities etc. Thus, even though, the applicant had secured the highest mark in the written test, he was not empanelled whereas the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were empanelled vide GM (P)'s letter No. E/254/4 -Comml/Selection 96(I) dated 27.4.1998.

(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the writ petition, the official respondents held a Review DPC on 28.6.2007 wherein the applicant's record of service was assessed by excluding the ACR for the year 1996 -97 and was awarded 21.6 marks in the record of service. However, the Review DPC did not make any change in the marks awarded to the applicant in viva voce meant for assessing personality, Leadership qualities etc. Thus, in record of service and viva voce together, the applicant secured only 28 marks whereas the qualifying mark is 30. The applicant fell short of 2 marks and thus was not recommended for inclusion in the original panel for promotion. Subsequently by impugned orders dated 5.7.2007 and 1.1.2008 were issued as already noted above. The validity of the said two orders are to be adjudicated in this case.