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 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 31705 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OS.864/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY (CPV) & CHIEF PASSPORT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 1. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (PV), MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. THE REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 036. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SHINY JAMES, W/O.P.A.JAMES, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, COCHIN - 36, R/AT QUARTER NO.315, PASSPORT OFFICE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 36 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: DON BOSCO BHAVAN, 55/1658 THOTTUNGATHARA ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O. COCHIN-682020 2. P.C.BEENA, W/O.LESLIE JOSEPH JOSHUA, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, COCHIN-35, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.315, PASSPORT OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT- 1/916, RIDSALE, BRANCH ROAD, FORT KOCHI, COCHIN - 682 001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.31705 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 10th November, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are the respondents in O.A.No.864/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The respondents filed the above O.A, aggrieved by the denial of promotion to them to the cadre of U.D.C. The bench mark ACR grading for promotion was “very good”. For some years, their grading was “good”. Therefore, they were held ineligible for promotion. The C.A.T took the view that though the grading “good” cannot normally be described as adverse, since the bench mark grading for promotion is “very good”, that grading should have been treated as adverse and communicated to the incumbents. Taking that view, the Tribunal held that the denial of promotion, relying on un-communicated adverse remarks is unsustainable. The Tribunal interfered with the denial of WPC 31705/2008 2 promotion of the applicants and directed the DPC to hold a review meeting and consider the claim of the applicants for promotion, ignoring the un-communicated grading below the bench mark. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, the respondents in that O.A have come up before this Court, by filing this Writ Petition. But, the point raised by the writ petitioners is squarely covered against them by the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India [(2008)8 SCC 725]. Therefore, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. Nm/