1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2760/2010 Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan & Anr. vs. Shiv Kumar Vijay and Anr. Date of order: 24.02.2010 HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J. HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. V.S. Gurjar, for the petitioner. This writ petition has been directed against the judgment dated 26.11.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal has held as under: “Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the respondents are directed to communicate all the entries below the benchmark of all the ACRs, which were considered by the DPC held on 22.3.2005, to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order so that he may file representation against such entries and on receipt of the representation the respondents are directed to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as held in the judgment cited supra. Representation must be decided by the authority higher than the one who gave the entry below the benchmark. Therefore, the applicant is directed to file his representation to the authority higher than the one who him such entry within one month from the date of communication of such entries and the respondents are directed to decide the representation within a period of three months 2 from the date of receipt thereof. In case the representation of the applicant is decided against him, he would be at liberty to approach this Tribunal again, if he so chooses.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in JT 2008 (7) SC 463. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that subsequent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.M. Mishra vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 120 has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record including the impugned judgment. 4. Having carefully perused the impugned judgment dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal, it is noticed that the persons junior to the petitioner has been promoted whereas, the petitioner was not considered suitable for promotion for the post of Vice Principal on the ground that his ACRs were below the benchmark, which have never been communicated to him. The applicant represented on 27.06.2005 and 01.08.2005 to the respondents but no heed was 3 paid to his representations. Lastly, a legal notice through Advocate was sent to the respondents on 13.09.2005. In response to this legal notice, the respondents vide letter dated 28.09.2005 informed the applicant that on the basis of service record he has not been found fit for promotion as Vice Principal. 5. The ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) is as under: “In our opinion, non- communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 6. Following the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Tribunal disposed of the Original application of the applicant-petitioner with the direction that entries below the benchmark of all the ACRs, which were considered by the DPC held on 22.3.2005 be communicated to the applicant- petitioner within a period of two months so that he may file representation against such entries and respondents were directed to decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as 4 held in the judgment cited (supra). In our considered opinion, the present facts and circumstances of the case are squarely covered by the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra), whereas, the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the K.M. Mishra (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) and directed to communicate such ACRs entries to the applicant so that he may file representation. It is for the respondents to consider the representation on their merits. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has committed no illegality in passing the said impugned order and the writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and hereby stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. (K.S. RATHORE), J. Mak/- 14