$ .A‘ WV C IN THE HON'BIE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No . 3330 /200l; Petitioner - D.c. Nandanuar, 55 years, S/o late Chinguji Nandanwar. Post Master, Ispat BhaWan, Bhila 1.Diatt. DURG (C’EGJ Versus Respandents -(l) Union.ot India Through -‘Secretary, Department of Pbst Office, Dak Bhawan’ NEW DELHI. Principal Chief Post Master General, M.P.c1rc1e. BHGPaL (MP). Chief Post Master Genal. Chhattisgarh Circle, _RAIPUR (c.G.). (h) Shri H. K. Bamhanote. Post Master. Head Post 0f£1ce Bilaspur (C.G,). writ Petition under Article 226/2277of Cpnstitutian or India er HIGH COURT OF‘CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU R B: ,Hon’ble ShriJustige I.M. Quddusi and ble‘Shri Justice Prash rit etition No.3990 of 2004 , W P D..anwar CNand vu erss nion o India ad hs U f n oter v >} i‘ti ‘; t utiLiuia : mi “iv RDER FOR CONSIDERATION Sd/_ Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Sd/- I.M.Quddusi udge £ #26‘1 X \ i i Post for ¢ -0£ -201O i Sd/- "i ”d“, 74 V , ‘ W11: -o-20’o D Hon’ antJKumar Mishra O f , 1, i J W b 1, g1 M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi and Hon’ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.3990 of 2004 Petitioner D.C.Nandanwar versus Respondents . Union of India and others Present: Shri H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Fouzia Mirza and Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. No one appears for respondent No.4. Writ Petition under Articie 226/227 of the Constitution of India ORDER (Passed on k3 -}&-2010) Per Prashant’Kumar Mishra, J.: The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 26-3-2004 passed by the Central'Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur, Circuit Sitting at Bilaspur dismissing his application which the petitioner had preferred seeking 'direction to the respondents to promote him one day earlier than his junior, i.e., respondent No.4 Shri H.K.Bamhanote and to pay the arrears of difference of salary from 12- 10-1998 being difference between the post of HSG-ll and HSG-l with interest @ 18%. 2. The matter pertains to promotion from the p‘ost of HSG-ll to the post of HSG-l. According to the petitioner, he was earlier promoted to the post of HSG-ll with effect from 11—2-1985 and was senior to the respondent No.4, however, vide order dated 12-10—1998, the said respondent No.4 was promoted to the p’ost of HSG-l superseding the petitioner. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that promotion of his junior ignoring his case is arbitrary and that the punishment of stoppage of one increment should not come in his way as the said punishment came to an end in April, 1998 and there being no adverse confidential report or entry ever communicated to him and having never been visited with any major punishment, his supersession is illegal. ln paragraph 5.8 of the petition, the petitioner contends that the respondents have not produced the service records of the petitioner and the respondent No.4 for verification and independent assessment of merit and suitability before the learned, Central Administrative Tribunal and that the DPC has also not properly appreciated his case. lt is further contended that an average remark does not constitute an adverse remark, therefore, merely because he was assigned average remark in his annual confidential report, he cannot be denied promotion. 4. The case of the respondents as projected in the reply filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as before this Court is that the case of the petitioner was considered by the DPC held on 6-8-1998 as well as on 8-10-1999, however, the’prom‘otional post of HSG-l being a post of selection—cum—seniority cadre, the benchmark as “good” has been prescribed for the selection of the officials for promotion to the post as per DOP&T instructions contained in letter No.22011/8/98— ‘ Establishment(D) dated 6-11—1998. The respondents contend that since the petitioner did not achieve the required benchmark grading s ‘7) besides being censured and withholding of one'increment for two years, therefore, both the DPCs did not recommend the petitioner for promotion to the post of HSG-l. Thus, according to the respondents, it is not a case of supersession but the DPC, after due consideration and appreciation of the service record, did not recommend his case for promotion as per the extant DOP&T instructions and benchmark fixed and thus there is no illegality or arbitrariness in not promoting the g, petitioner and promoting the respondent No.4 in pursuance to the DPC meeting dated 6-8-1998. Copy of the tabulation sheet along with minutes of meeting dated 6-8-1998 has been filed by the respondents as Annexure R—2 in this Court. The respondents have also tiled minutes of the DPC dated 4-1-2002 as Annexure R-3 and the relevant part of the conditions of promotion as Annexure R 4 3 l I‘Jilg a .JLJHLii: i 5. Learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard at length. 6. Annexure R—4 is the extant instructions issued by the DOP&T on 6-1 1:1 998 on g the basis pf; its .earljerrgmemgorrangumydated, 27-3-1 997. The relevant 'part of the instructions relating to procedure to be observed by the DPC where mode of promotion is “selection-cum- seniority” is’feproduced hereunder: “Copy of O.M. No.22011/8/98-Estt(D), Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) Date November6 1998 ,\ I. tailt.oc Subject .- Procedure to be observed by the Departmental Promotron Commrttees (DPCs) - Mode of Promotion- ‘Selection-cum-Seniority’ \. — Number of candidates to be considered by / the DPCs. \\ :‘j 119/5.“ l‘ rtiff' f1. .. \ W ¥ \ J \ ‘77/ The undersigned is directed to invite reference to Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum No.22011/5/91-Estt(D) dated March 27, 1997 on the subject cited above. These instructions, inter-alia, provide that in cases where mode of promotion is “Selection—Cum- Seniority” and the prescribed bench-mark is “Good" the employees are to be graded as “Good”, “Average" and “Unfit” only. In such cases no supersession can take place and the employees who posses the bench-mark “Good" are to be included in the panel in the order of their seniority in the lower grade, In this connection it has been suggested by the Union Public Service Commission that there should be no need to scrutinize ACRs of all eligible candidates covered by the zone of conSIderation after the DPC has assessed the employees, equal to the number of vacancies, as “Good". 2. The suggestion of the Commission has been considered by the Governmentand,_it hasbeen decided to accept it. Accordingly while the some of consideration would remain as already present the DPC, in the aforesaid category of cases, may assess the suitability of employees in the zone of consideration for inclusion in the panel for promotions upto .atnumber whichsis. considered sufficient against the number of vacancies. With regard to the number of employees to be included in the panel, the DPC may also be required to keep in view the instructions issued by Department of Personnel and Training Office Memorandum Noiz'2'01‘1/‘1b73'7EE’éit‘(D)f“diatéta‘AbriiidfHg’sa relating to norms for preparing extended panel for promotion. ln respect of the remainingremployees, the DPC may put a note in the minutes that “the assessment of the remaining employees in the zone of consideration is considered ’“notJ necessary ‘as ‘fsuft‘i‘cie‘n‘t‘l'Knumb’er ‘of employees with prescribed bench—mark have become available”. wl ii l i (l "xi ‘r’.’;.'i i i5:.a;%7—l.§:)'iS§i.j; dotted yer-RUN: 9 I’i r L1; ix, i WE Ministries/Departments are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all concern attached/sub—ordinate offices. ed including their Sd/- (K.K.Jha) i (Director (Establishment) Dated at Bhopal, the 644999 Endst.No.STA 1~682/IV The said is reproduced hereunder: ln the DPC held on 8-10- 1999, seven employees including the petitioner were considered for their cases for promotion to the post of HSG-l. Year- years before the DPC dated 8-10-1999 is as follows: Wise service record of the petitioner for the preceding nve “Year Rema 1993-94 (i) (ii) rks Average/Average Censured (iii) K Under suspension suspension from 4.3.94 1994-95 1995-96 w.i,x(,(j);._l ‘ (ii) ' :ruAsveyggg’r-mn’pnyr: inn/n2» .. ‘ 1 996-97 (i) Withholding'of one increment for two years - 1997-98 (ii) Average/Average Censured “Year V3,, ‘glm p . . 1 994-95 1995-96 (i) Remarlfs Average Average (ii) Stoppage of 1 996~97 (i) one increment for two years Average/Average ' t. 1997—98 ‘ . ism); (i) Licengategi‘: Qli‘litgfo"y‘t.‘t'u ‘ 1998-99 ’ (i) Censured ‘ Average" 8. The responents have produced before this Court the original file d of the confidential reports of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4. On perusai of the service record as well as the comparative chart produced by the respondents, it would appear that the petitioner was graded average in all the preceding five years, whereas the respondent No.4 was graded as good in one of the preceding five years. Thus, according to the extant instructions issued by the DOP&T, the respondent No.4’ satisfied the benchmark good, whereas the petitioner failed to satisfy the required benchmark good as all his annual confidential reports were average for the preceding five years. \7‘1 a‘ 9. After perusal of thé recordithisicb’tjrt"isiga‘t‘is'héd‘théit‘the post of HSG-l being selection post and the required benchmark being good and the case of the petitioner having been considered in the DPC held on 6-8-1998 as well as on 8-1 0-1999 and after considering his case, the DPC has‘not recomm\ended"th:ef"{caseé:of\the‘petitioner, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents as the petitioner was not fit for promotion on the criteria of selection—cum- seniority. v H. ,. _ J m t ,.. iti‘liu‘; 1, ,i.‘ 10. The impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not call for any interference. The writ petition, being Gopa’f devoid of any substance, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. i/ sdl- i Sd/- i Prashant Kumar Mishra ' Judge I. i” 1.M.Qudd“5i 3 l Judge