IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.16560 of 2008 Between: 1. The Flag Officers Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. 2. The Chief Staff Officer (P&A) (For SSO'CP'), Head Quarters Eastern Naval Command Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONERS AND Shri K. Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Papayya Naidu, Ship Building Centre, Naval Base, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue preferably writ in the nature of Certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records pertaining to order dated 04 Jan 2008 in OA 558/2004 on the ﬁle of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent: - none - The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.16560 of 2008 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order dated 04.01.2008 in O.A.No.558 of 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and to quash the same. Respondent is the applicant in O.A.No.558 of 2004. He ﬁled the said O.A., challenging the order dated 29.02.2004/05.04.2004 passed by the 1st petitioner rejecting the appeal dated 31.05.2002 preferred by him against his non- selection for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade-II by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and non-grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) i.e, ﬁnancial upgradation, by the departmental screening committee. The brief facts are that the respondent was appointed as LDC in the petitioner-department on 01.03.1980 and later was promoted as Stenographer Grade-III on 01.05.1982. While so, consequent upon arising vacancies of Stenographers Grade-II, DPC was constituted, which recommended some candidates for promotion, however, did not recommend the respondent on the ground that he did not possess the requisite benchmark of good. Aggrieved by non-inclusion of his name in the said list and also not providing ACP, respondent made representations dated 01.02.2000 and 19.04.2000 to the petitioners. However, vide letters dated 16.02.2000 and 20.06.2000, the petitioners informed the respondent that his case was not considered, as he did not meet the required benchmark. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent carried the matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but was unsuccessful. Against the same, the respondent ﬁled statutory appeal on 31.05.2002, which was also dismissed. He challenged the said order in O.A.No.558 of 2004 before the Tribunal below. The petitioners ﬁled counter in the O.A., contending that as per the existing norms, regular promotion would be given to an employee based on the overall assessment made by the departmental screening committee and further as the post of Stenographer Grade-II is a selection post, the minimum requirement is that the employee should get bench mark of ‘good’. As the respondent was below the benchmark, the DPC has not considered his case for promotion and the ACP was also not given to him. The Tribunal below allowed the O.A., directing the petitioners to hold review DPC with the stipulation that the average grading which was not communicated to the respondent should not be considered and the annual conﬁdential report of the respondent prior to ﬁve years’ period may be considered. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed this writ petition. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the petitioners, and perused the record. The DPC did not consider the case of the respondent, as his grading as per the annual conﬁdential reports, was average, which is below the benchmark of ‘good’ ﬁxed by it. Admittedly, the annual conﬁdential reports of the respondent were not communicated to him. It is the primary duty of the petitioners to communicate adverse remarks to the respondent for the purpose of improving himself and also enabling him to prefer any appeal. So, by non-communication of the same, the petitioners deprived the respondent of the said opportunity, and kept him in dark. However, it is the case of the petitioners that as per the procedure existing in the department, only adverse entries will be communicated to an employee and as the grade of average is neither complementary nor adverse, it was not communicated to the respondent. But, the circular dated 28.05.2003 issued by the petitioners falsiﬁes their contention. Under the said circular, they have directed all their establishments that the bench mark for promotion to the grades carrying pay scales of Rs.12000-16500 and above is ‘very good’ and that for promotion to the grades below the pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 is ‘good’, and the oﬃcers who are likely to be assessed below the bench mark should be informed well in advance by the oﬃcers concerned to enable them to improve themselves, instead of awarding below the bench mark grading without giving him an opportunity to improve. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners have violated the principles of natural justice, by not communicating the below benchmark grading to the respondent, and depriving him the opportunity of improving himself, and preferring any appeal against the said adverse remarks. Considering all the above aspects, the Tribunal below rightly allowed the O.A., and directed the respondents to hold a review DPC and ignore the non-communicated annual conﬁdential reports and to consider the conﬁdential reports prior to ﬁve years period. We do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal below, warranting our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the circumstances, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ (Justice Ghulam Mohammed) ___________________ (Justice C.V.Ramulu) 31st July 2008 sh