IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH AUGUST 2010 / 25TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25725 of 2010(S) -------------------------------------- [OA.NO.14/2009 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE,DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, DAIRYING AND FISHERIES,NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR,CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES,NAUTICAL & ENGINEERING TRAINING, FORESHORE ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.J.XAVIER,BOSUN,CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF FISHERIES,NAUTICAL & ENGINEERING TRAINING UNIT, CHENNAI,(RESIDING AT VELIVIL HOUSE,B.T.S.ROAD, DEVANKULANGARA, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-682 024.) BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & S.S.Satheesachandran, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.25725 of 2010-S = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of August, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner establishment challenges an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The question raised is as to whether the respondent, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was eligible for first ACP of 9.8.1999 and the second ACP on completion of 24 years of service. It is not in dispute that on completion of 24 years, he was eligible for the second ACP. The issue is whether the denial of the first ACP on ground that he was not found to have acquired the bench- mark stands. We find that all that the Tribunal has done is to direct the establishment to WPC25725/10 -: 2 :- consider the case of the applicant since no entry adverse to his interest was put to him and going by the ratio of the Apex Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, an entry in the service records which discloses adverse remark for any purpose should not be utilized against an officer unless appropriately communicated since the incumbent should have an opportunity to challenge such entry which would ultimately result in adverse consequences. Therefore, the law is that every entry which may tend to operate as adverse should be put to an officer. What exactly is the bench-mark which the Screening Committee had adopted was not produced before the Tribunal. All that the Tribunal has done is to direct the establishment to consider the representation of the applicant and to provide him an opportunity of hearing, if the decision were adverse to him. Under such circumstances, we find no error of jurisdiction or illegality on the face of the impugned WPC25725/10 -: 3 :- decision of the Tribunal. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. S.S.Satheesachandran, Judge. Sha/2808