ABDUL SALAM Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner herein for promotion to the post of Principal (Diploma Wing), Chandigarh College of Engineering and Technology, Sector 26, Chandigarh was considered along with the other candidate by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not in dispute that benchmark for promotion to the said post is 'Very Good' rating in ACRs for the last five preceding years. The petitioner and even the other candidate who was considered did not acquire this bench-mark and, therefore, the Departmental Promotion Committee found them unfit for promotion. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, his ACRs for the last five years were 'Good' only. The petitioner challenged the non-promotion by filing Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. This Original Application has been dismissed vide orders dated 2.9.2010 and questioning the validity of that order, present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed in this Court. The Tribunal gave the following reasoning in support of its conclusion that the petitioner did not have any case on merits:--

(2.) Five years' record, which was relevant and was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, pertained to the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002. Even if we go back and consider the record from 1994, still the petitioner earned only 'Good' ACRs. As already pointed out above, the bench-mark for promotion to the post of Principal, as prescribed by instructions, is 'Very Good' in all five years. The effect of non-communication of the ACRs, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, could be to ignore these ACRs and consider the ACRs for previous years. However, that would not help the petitioner, as he did not earn 'Very Good' remarks in all these years even for one year. It would be impossible for him to make out a case for five 'Very Good' reports. In a case like this, it is not necessary to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, thus, do not find any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.