IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.119 of 2006 (S/B) Arun Kumar Uniyal ………..Petitioner Versus The Central Administrative Tribunal & others ….Respondents Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Dated: 25th February, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In a decision of Union of India, it has been provided that if A.C.R. grading of its employees are ‘good’, the same need not to be communicated. Petitioner, an employee of Union of India, received good entries during the relevant years except one ‘very good’ entry in one of those years. According to the said decision of Union of India, the good entries were not communicated to the petitioner. Because the petitioner received good entries and only one very good entry during the relevant years, petitioner was not given non- functional selection grade, inasmuch as other similarly situated employees, who were also considered alongwith the petitioner, had more very good entries during the relevant years. In consequence, juniors to the petitioner have been given a better service benefit and the petitioner has been denied. 2 2. Petitioner, accordingly, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Noting that there was no requirement to inform the petitioner as regards good entries, it was held there was no interferable action on the part of Union of India and, since petitioner got less very good entries than others, there was no scope of interference with the subject matter of complain before the Tribunal. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been furnished. 4. There is no dispute that there is a decision of the Central Government that it shall not be necessary to communicate good remarks, but there is no decision of the Central Government that ‘good’ remark would be treated as ‘very good’ or that there is no difference between ‘good’ and ‘very good’ and accordingly, a person receiving ‘good’ has no chance of losing out in his future career. That being the situation and as the fact above has disclosed, despite a person getting good remarks, he may lose out for he has not received ‘very good’ remarks and, accordingly, it is a requirement of law as also under the Constitutional mandate contained in Article 14 of the Constitution, to communicate to the petitioner that he has received ‘good’ and, not ‘very good’ and, accordingly, there is a possibility that he may suffer in his further progression. In this connection, reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned in the present writ petition. We direct the respondent- employer to furnish ‘good’ entries to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of furnishing a copy of the order upon respondent no.3. Within three weeks therefrom, the petitioner shall be entitled to make representation to alter ‘good’ remarks. Such representation shall be decided by the respondent no.3 within four weeks from the date of making such representation and communicate the result of such consideration to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of consideration. In the event, respondent no.3 altering any of those ‘good’ remarks to ‘very good’ remarks, on the basis of such representation of the petitioner, the said respondent shall constitute a Departmental Promotion Committee and reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh as on the date the earlier Departmental Promotion Committee found petitioner not fit for being accorded non-functional selection grade. 5. This disposes of the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 25.02.2011 25.02.2011 Arpan