Civil Writ Petition No.7884-CAT of 2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7884-CAT of 2004 Date of decision: April 01, 2008 Harjinder Singh, Technical Officer ‘C’ (Retd.) … Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been preferred by Harjinder Singh son of Wattan Singh, Technical Officer (C) (Retired) praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the impugned order dated 25.02.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench, whereby prayer of the petitioner for grant of assessment promotion with effect from 28.12.1978 to the next higher grade of Rs.550-900 was dismissed. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Senior Draftsman in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.205-280 w.e.f. 28.12.1973. On the revision of pay scale on recommendations of the third pay commission, he was granted placement in pay scale of Rs.380-640. The petitioner was considered for the post of Junior Technical Assistant against open selection post and was given promotion to the next grade of Civil Writ Petition No.7884-CAT of 2004 2 Rs.425-700 w.e.f. 30th April, 1979 and on completion of requisite number of service in the lower grade, petitioner was considered for promotion to the next grade of Rs.550-900 and was given assessment promotion w.e.f. 30.04.1985, 30.04.1990 and 30.04.1995 and was placed in the revised pay scales from time to time. The petitioner had filed OA No. 906/CH/97 seeking consideration of his case for assessment promotion in terms of policy of the respondents. This OA was accepted and the respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for assessment promotion in terms of aforesaid policy in letter and spirit w.e.f. the date he has completed five years and the scale of Rs.425-700 w.e.f. the months falling in the year 1979 instead of 1984. On consideration, respondent desired relief, which necessitated filing of O.A. 1201/CH/2002, in which impugned order has been passed. Before the Administrative Tribunal, it was submitted by the respondents that the applicant was interviewed by the expert assessment committee on 4th March, 2002 and committee had laid following criteria: (i) ACRs : 50 marks (ii) Interview : 50 marks (iii) Threshold : 60 marks Case of the respondents is that the petitioner was not recommended for assessment promotion as he had not obtained threshold marks of 60. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal, vide impugned order (Annexure P-1), decided and observed as under: “6. From the facts of the case, it is established that respondents had assessed the applicant in terms of policy dated 6th May, 1969 by interviewing him. Respondents had followed the same criteria for the applicant as well as Sh.Makhan Singh and the applicant has not been discriminated against. He had participated in the interview without raising any objection and now when he has not been Civil Writ Petition No.7884-CAT of 2004 3 able to make the grade, he cannot turn round and challenge the process of interview. This view of ours finds support from the following authorities:- 1. Madan Lal and others Vs. State of J&K and others – 1995 SCC (L&S), 712. 2. Om Parkash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others, 1986 SCC (L&S), 644.” We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the impugned order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is well reasoned, just and fair. Both the grievances of the petitioner have been considered. Since a criteria was adopted by the respondents for grant of promotion in the case of Makhan Singh, petitioner cannot agitate having failed to obtain threshold marks, that the denial of assessment promotion in 1979 is bad. It will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner was granted assessment promotion in the year 1984. Petitioner had also appeared in the interview held by the expert Assessment Committee on 4th March, 2002 under the orders of the learned Tribunal. It has been held in Union Territory, Chandigarh and another vs. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh and others, 2001(2) RSJ 723, as under: “8. Before adverting to the respective arguments, we consider it necessary to observe that a writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals. A writ can also be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or the Tribunal acts illegally or improperly i.e. it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order or where the procedure adopted by it is opposed to the principles of natural justice. However, it must be remembered that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory Civil Writ Petition No.7884-CAT of 2004 4 jurisdiction and not appellate one. This necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal, as a result of the appreciation of evidence, cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings except when the judgment, order or award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A finding of fact recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal can be corrected only if it is shown that in recording the said finding the Court or the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence and the same has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, a finding of fact based on no evidence would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari.” Since the Tribunal had appreciated the issues raised and the reasoning of the Tribunal is appropriate, no interference is called for and present writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge [Ashutosh Mohunta] Judge April 01, 2008. rps