PRIYA NATH SINHA SON OF TRIBHUWAN NATH Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR, PATNA BENCH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.5.2005 (Annexure 10), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in OA No. 407 of 2004, whereby the original application preferred by the present petitioner has been rejected, and the decision of the respondent authorities declining to promote him to the next higher post of Director (Geology), has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was a Geologist in the services of the Government of India. It published a combined gradation list on 1.8.2000 (Annexure 2), wherein the petitioner figured at sl. No. 70, followed by one M.P. Muraleedharan at sl. No. 71. The petitioner as well as the said M.P. Muraleedharan were at that point of time occupying the position of Senior Geologist. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, in short) met on 14.6.2002, and considered candidates to fill up 38 vacancies of Director, Geology. Out of these 38 posts, two were for the year 2000-2001. In view of the recommendation of the DPC, the Government of India, Geological Survey of India, issued office memo dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure 3), whereby 37 Senior Geologists were promoted to the next higher posts of Director (Geology). The petitioner was not found fit for promotion, and persons junior to him including the said M P Muraleedharan were promoted. The subsequent meeting of the DPC also did not find the petitioner fit for promotion. This was followed by OA No. 1019 of 2003 at the instance of the petitioner which was disposed of by order dated 8.1.2004, whereby the Director General of Geological Survey of India was directed to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. The Director General considered the representation and has rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 5.5.2004 (Annexure 7), which in substance states that the petitioner was denied promotion because he was not found fit by the DPC. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring the present OA No. 407 of 2004, which has been rejected by the impugned order, whereby the Tribunal has held that in case of promotion it is a question of comparative assessment. The petitioner was found unfit by the DPC and, therefore, the Tribunal would not like to substitute its judgment over that of the DPC.

(3.) We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. According to the aforesaid office memo dated 10.4.89, for all the posts of Government of India which carry the unrevised pay-scale of Rs. 3700-5000 and above, the Bench Mark grade should be 'Very Good' for the last five years before the DPC. In the present case, the petitioner was considered but he did not earn 'Very Good' remarks during all the five years preceding the DPC. He has, therefore, not been found suitable for the promotion. The admitted position is that the entries in the petitioner's ACR which fell short of 'Very Good' were not communicated to him for comments/representation.