UMAKANT MAURYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Application was admitted by this Tribunal on 17th September, 2009. Notice was accepted on behalf of respondent No. 1. The Tribunal directed the respondents to file reply within six weeks. It appears from the Roznama dated 29th April, 2013 that prayer for further time to file reply was granted on a condition that the respondents shall pay a cost of Rs. 3,000/ - to the applicant. It was further directed that the cost shall be paid along with the written statement to be filed within four weeks. The matter was taken up for hearing on 12th March, 2014. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Reply is also not available in the record. Since the matter is of 2009, this matter was taken up for final hearing on 14.3.2014. The applicant has challenged the office orders dated 29th November, 2008 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning and 29th November, 2008 issued by the Administrative Officer, National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning. The contents of those two office orders are that the applicant did not fulfill the eligibility criteria during the assessment period 2000 -2001 and 2001 -2002 for promotion to the post of Technical Officer T -(7 -8).

(2.) WE heard Mr. S.K. Verma, Proxy Counsel for Mr. S.S. Sanyal, learned Counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings and the documents.

(3.) THE facts of the case as narrated in the Original Application was, inter alia, that the applicant was due for promotion to the post of Technical Officer since 2001 till 2009. The applicant was not aware as to why he was not considered for promotion. He sought information on 20.10.2008 under Right to Information Act. The applicant was informed that since the applicant did not possess three 'Very Good' remarks in the last 5 yearly assessment, he was not considered for promotion. The Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 25.10.2004. However, the recommendation column was left blank. The applicant also sought information from the authorities and asked them to communicate to him the AARs for the years 1996 till 2008. The said information revealed that for the years 1996 to 2001 applicant's AAR contained the following remarks: