IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 12530 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.28/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ E.B.VIJAYAN NAIR, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(RETD.), 'INDRAPRASTH', EDAKKAT HOUSE, P.O.PANANGATTUKARA, WADAKANCHERY, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI. 4. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12530 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. He was considered for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, by the D.P.C., which met on 16th -18th February, 2005. The petitioner was assessed as unfit by the Committee. Therefore, he was not promoted. Challenging his non- promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner, the writ petitioner filed O.A.No.28/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. According to him, without assigning any reasons, he has been classified as an unfit candidate for promotion. The eligibility for promotion was assessed solely based on the rating in the Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates. No adverse remarks in the report have been communicated to him. Therefore, his supersession is unjustified. On the above grounds, the applicant sought reliefs in the above O.A. The respondents resisted the application by filing a reply statement. The WPC 12530/08 2 Tribunal called for the records. It was found that the applicant's grading for the relevant years in the Annual Confidential Reports was as follows: 1998-99 : Very Good 1999-2000 : Good 2000-01 : Good 2001-02 : Good 2002-03 : Very Good As per the norms and procedure for the D.P.Cs prescribed in the DOP&T O.M dated 10.4.1989, the benchmark prescribed for promotion to the level of Joint Commissioner is Very Good. Since the petitioner failed to get Very Good grading for the relevant five years, he was superseded. The applicant contended before the Tribunal that when a higher grading is prescribed for the benchmark and since he failed to get the higher grading, he should have been put on notice regarding the grading, which was below the benchmark and he should have been given an opportunity to represent against it. A decision of the Mumbai Bench of the C.A.T., which was later affirmed by the Mumbai High Court was also relied on by the applicant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the above contentions and rejected them, by Ext.P2 order. The decisions cited were distinguished in the said order. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Ext.P2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted WPC 12530/08 3 that when a particular benchmark is prescribed and when the petitioner's grading is below the said benchmark, he should be put on notice regarding the same. But, as per the relevant rules and orders governing the D.P.C proceedings, there is no provision, which says that the concerned incumbent should be put on notice when his grading is below the benchmark, especially when the benchmark fixed is at a higher level. In the absence of any right flowing from any rules or orders, the petitioner cannot claim any relief from the C.A.T or from this Court. Since he failed to attain the prescribed benchmark, he has been rightly superseded. We find nothing wrong with the decision of the C.A.T. We agree with its reasons and conclusions. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/