WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.6463/2011 % Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 VED M. RAO ....Petitioner Through Mr.Venkatraman, Advocate. VERSUS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING & OTHERS …..Respondents Through CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % SANJIV KHANNA, J. We have heard Mr. K. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the petitioner at length. It is submitted that the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 should have been ignored as the gradings were not communicated to her in spite of the fact that the bench mark for the next promotion was „very good‟. It is submitted that retirement of the petitioner is of no consequence. Lastly, it is stated that the exercise undertaken by the respondents in reviewing the ACRs for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is an eyewash as the reporting as well as the reviewing officer have retired and were not available. WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 2 of 4 2. Decision in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Others (2008) 8 SCC 725 requires the authorities to communicate gradings recorded in the ACR, if the gradings recorded do not meet the prescribed bench mark. The said decision nowhere stipulates that the gradings have to be ignored. The petitioner had filed O.A.No.2601/2004, which was disposed of by the tribunal directing that the uncommunicated downgraded ACRS should be ignored. The respondents challenged the said decision in W.P.(C)14677-79/2006, which was decided on 6th February, 2009. In the said decision it was directed that the petitioner should make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and the respondents should decided the said issue within two months from the date of the order. It was further directed that in case the petitioner‟s ACRs are upgraded, a review DPC would be held and she would be entitled to all benefits, if any. The aforesaid decision was in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in J.S. Garg Vs. Union of India 2002 (65) DRJ 607 (FB). In view of the aforesaid position, the order dated 6th February, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) 14677- 79/2006 has attained finality. The petitioner cannot claim that the ACRs for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 should be ignored. WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 3 of 4 3. It is accepted that the petitioner had made a representation for upgradation of the ACRs, but the said representation has been rejected. It is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that the representation should have been decided by the reporting officer and the reviewing officer in the concerned years. The said officers have retired and, therefore, the representation was rightly examined by the reporting officer and the reviewing officer holding the said posts. The order passed by the said officers, as recorded in the communication dated 15th March, 2010, reads as under:- ACRs for the period 1998-99-P-III (Assessment of reporting officer). Nature and quality of work:- The primary assignment of Ms Ved M Rai was planning & production of plays/serials in view of her professional qualifications & experience. But she under to- production of some music programme only, grading „Good‟. P-V Remarks of the Reviewing Officer- „A Good Officer‟. ACR for the period 1999-2000 0 Remarks of reporting officer Grading- „Good‟ . Remarks of the Reviewing officer “The output, quantum or work & qualities of work may be graded as „Good‟ only”. 4. The officers have taken into consideration planning and production of plays/serials, which were assigned to the petitioner during the said period. They have referred to her professional qualifications and WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 4 of 4 experience. Accordingly, keeping in view the output, quantum of work and quality of work, she was graded „good‟ in her ACRs for the relevant years and the gradings were not upgraded. 5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 NA