IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5567 of 2009 Between: 1 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, rep. by its Commissioner. 2 The Joint Commissioner (Admn), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 3 Department of Selection Committee, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, rep. by Joint Commissioner (Admn), 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 4 The Assistant Commissioner (Admn. & Fin.), Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi. 5 The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Regional Office, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND D. Babu S/o. N. Doraiswamy Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Regional Office, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in O.A.No.193 of 2008 dt. 21.10.2008 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad and to set aside the order declaring it as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent : MR.Meherchand Nori The Court made the following : ORDER :: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5567 of 2009 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Moahmmed, J ) This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 21-10-2008 passed in OA No.193 of 2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and to set aside the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 3. The writ petitioners are the officials of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The 1st respondent herein filed the above OA No.193 of 2008 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, aggrieved by the action of the respondents-petitioners herein in not considering his case for next promotion, to the post of Superintendent in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS). It was stated that he was appointed as Asst. Superintendent in KVS in the year 1984 and his next promotion is to the post of Superintendent. That as per the recruitment rules, the method of filing up of the said post is 75 % by promotion, and 25% by direct recruitment. According to the respondent (applicant) he has rendered more than five years of services to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintendent, but the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which met on 14-9-2007 considered his case for promotion along with others, could not found him fit for promotion on the purported ground that he did not meet the prescribed ‘bench mark’. 4. The Tribunal considering the decision of the Apex Court in DEV DUTT vs. UNION OF INDIA (2008 (4) SCJ 489) wherein the Apex Court held that the entries of an employee in confidential reports as to ‘very good, good, average, fair and poor’, other than the remark ‘outstanding’ shall have to be communicated to the employee so that an opportunity of making a representation for its up gradation etc. would be possible, directed the respondents-petitioners herein communicate the grading of the respondent herein (applicant). It was observed by the Tribunal that the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in similar matters passed similar orders in light of the observations of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt’s case (1 supra). 5. Admittedly, the rejection order passed by the authorities did not specify the benchmark of the respondent for not being considered his case for promotion and it appears his promotion was denied based on the un-communicated remarks. It is not the case of the petitioner-authorities that they have issued a memo or a remark to the respondent to improve his performance on earlier occasion, if really he was not up to the mark. 6. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J _____________________ B. Seshasayana Reddy, J Dated: 1-4-2009 Nrg .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}