hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 434 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 543 OF 2008 Dwarika Prasad ... Petitioner Versus Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. And Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.V. Bukhari, H.D. Buch i/by S.K. More for the Petitioner. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Counsel with Mr. S.P. Bharti for Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 06, 2010 P.C. Petitioner has approached this court challenging the promotional policy as also the promotions done based on that policy. Petition has been admitted and is pending. During the pendency of this petition, Petitioner has taken out a motion seeking that review DPC should be constituted. This is based on what the Petitioner says is that information received by him under the Right to Information Act. It is the case of the Petitioner that in the year 2004-05 his PAR was not considered. For that purpose he referred to communication dated 24.11.2008 which shows that for 2004-05 it was not available in the office of G.M. Head Corporate R&P. It is the case of the Petitioner that in fact for the year 2004-05, his appraisal report would show that he was given A+. If that had been considered then his name should have been placed for consideration. As his appraisal report was based on the average, in terms of the DPC as set out earlier, the DPC should be constituted to consider his case from 2004-05. On behalf of the Respondents, reply has been filed. In the said reply, it is pointed out that the Respondents had intimated parties whose records were not available to get the reports done. This was put up on internet on 15.11.2006, 13.12.2006, 24.1.2007 and 30.5.2007. However, Petitioner did not respond. It is only after DPC met and did selection on 1.1.2008 did Petitioner on 15.12.2008 submitted his PAR. It is submitted apart from that this PAR has been written by Mr..B.M. Singh, then Asset Manager of Ahmedabad Asset of Respondent Corporation. In fact it is pointed out that the appraisal Officer should be Asset Manager, Assam Asset who was the Reporting Officer for the relevant year. Also if Petitioner has not accepted the new promotion policy, this court need not entertain this relief at this stage. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, considering that the report was prepared only after DPC had met and selection process completed and even though Petitioner was given enough opportunity and secondly as the record now shows that the person who had written PAR was not the officer who had to write it, in our opinion, no case made out for granting any relief. It may be pointed out that though rejoinder had been filed by the Petitioner to the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents, there is no specific denial of the averments that the report has been written by a person who had no authority. In the light of that, no case for interference. Motion rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F,I. REBELLO,J.)