IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 21491 of 2008 Between: Habeeb Mohammed Khan S/o.late Mohammed Hussain Khan Engineering & Transport Division, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, R/o. No. 22-2-504, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Central Secretariat, New Delhi. 2 The Senior Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Senior Administrative Officer, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Certiorari (a) call for the records related to and connected with O.A. No.848 of 2007 dt. 4.3.2008 and quash or set aside the same by holding it as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and; (b) consequently direct the respondents to treat that the petitioner is entitled for promotion as Foreman (Junior) w.e.f. 13.3.2002 the date on which his junior K.Ramulu was promoted with all other consequential benefits and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RADHA KRISHNA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.21491 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 04.03.2008, passed in O.A.No.848 of 2007 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, earlier, when the petitioner was not promoted to the post of Foreman (Junior), he filed O.A.No.1247 of 2004 before the Tribunal and the same was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s representation and take appropriate decision by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner’s case was considered and he was promoted as Foreman (Junior) with effect from 01.03.2005. On the ground that he was not promoted with effect from 21.03.2002, the date on which immediate junior one K. Ramulu had been promoted, the petitioner filed O.A.No.985 of 2005, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 25.06.2007, directing the respondents to convene a review DPC for all the relevant years in which his immediate juniors were considered and promoted in preference to the petitioner with a view to consider his case objectively. Thereafter, in compliance with the said order of the Tribunal, the respondents convened a review DPC on 22.10.2007, but did not recommend the case of the petitioner for promotion, on the ground that as per the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), he did not reach the required benchmark of ‘Good’ for promotion. The same was communicated to him by order dated 24.10.2007 of the 2nd respondent- Senior Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Hyderabad. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present O.A. before the Tribunal, stating that the review DPC has not considered his case objectively for promotion on par with his juniors, by fixing the benchmark with reference to ACRs at the first instance and then consider his case in strict compliance with DOPT guidelines, but have mechanically rejected his case. The respondents have resisted the O.A. The Tribunal, after detailed consideration of the matter, held that the orders passed in O.A.No.985 of 2005 have been followed by the respondents in letter and spirit and the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected for promotion, and accordingly dismissed the O.A. by the impugned order dated 04.03.2008. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the benchmark for promotion of the petitioner has been fixed in the month of October 2007 only, but the standards which were fixed in October 2004 are to be applied retrospectively in the case of the petitioner, that the review DPC should not have simply fixed the benchmark as ‘good’, but should have specified the number of entries showing ‘good’ as the benchmark, that when there were some adverse entries in the ACRs disentitling the petitioner for promotion, the same should have been communicated to him, which was not done, and the Tribunal without taking into consideration all these aspects, erroneously dismissed the O.A. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government appearing for the respondents supported the impugned order stating that the Tribunal has considered the matter in detail and rightly dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, pursuant to the earlier orders of the Tribunal, a review DPC has been convened and the order, dated 24.10.2007, impugned in the O.A., rejecting the case of the petitioner for promotion, has been communicated to him. A perusal of the said order shows that the case of the petitioner has been reassessed in detail for promotion on par with his juniors, but however, since he could not reach the benchmark ‘good’ as per his ACRs and could not fulfill the eligibility criteria, he was denied the promotion on par with his juniors. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, any adverse entries in the ACRs should have been communicated to the petitioner, but the respondents did not do so. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the Tribunal, on perusal of the material papers produced by the respondents, categorically held that two such remarks in the confidential report of the petitioner for the relevant period have been communicated to the petitioner on 05.03.2002, but subsequently they were expunged by order dated 01.04.2002, while advising the petitioner that his performance over the years has not been satisfactory which has to be improved considerably. Therefore, it is clear that there were adverse remarks against the petitioner during the relevant period and therefore he could not reach the benchmark ‘good’, which disentitled him for promotion on par with his juniors. Though the said adverse remarks, which were communicated to him, were subsequently expunged, the petitioner was advised to improve his performance. Thus, it can be said that the petitioner was also aware that his performance was not satisfactory during the relevant period. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the case of the petitioner has been rejected for promotion on par with juniors, and dismissed the O.A. We see no illegality in the impugned order calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29.09.2008 v v