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. 21454 of 2008 Between: Habeeb Mohammed Khan S/o. Late Mohammed Hussain Khan Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad R/o. 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 R.A.No. 12 of 2008 dt. 26-06-2008 in OA No. 848 of 2007 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RADHA KRISHNA, LEARNED 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.21454 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is ﬁled questioning the order, dated 26.06.2008, passed in R.A.No.12 of 2008 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 O.A.No.848 of 2007 before the Tribunal. 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 order dated 04.03.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner ﬁled a review application, vide R.A.No.12 of 2008, seeking review of the said order, which was also dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 26.06.2008. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the O.A. No.848 of 2007 ﬁled by the petitioner and therefore the petitioner sought to ﬁle the present review application. But, the Tribunal, without considering the grounds raised therein, has mechanically dismissed the review application as well. 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 review application filed by the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, in compliance of the order dated 25.06.2007 passed in O.A.No.985 of 2005, the respondents convened a review DPC on 22.10.2007 and on the ground that as per the Annual Conﬁdential Reports (ACRs), the petitioner did not reach the required benchmark of ‘Good’, his case was not recommended and under those circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. and the Review Petition. 6. In the circumstances, 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,d and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 29.09.2008 v v