IN THS HIGH CCURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG.L OlE D? THIS T 29TH DAY OF MAY, 1998 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. R.P. SETH!, CHIEF JUSTICE THE HC’i3 MR.JUSTICE M.B. VISliAI.TATH WRIT PETITION NO. 12436/1998 BETWEE N 1. UNION OF II Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of H0m9 Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi — 110 011 2. The Registrar General of India, Ministry of Home ff airs, Govt. of India, No.2/k Hansingh Road, New Delhi — 110 011 3. The Director of Census Operation, Karnataka, Bangalore, 7th Flor, E & F Wing, Kerdriya Sdan, Kor:mangila, Bangalore — 560 034 ... PETITIOS (By v. Sri.N, Devadas) 1. K. Narayana Bhat, 5/0 Subbarava Bhat, Aoed about ro years, Resident of No. 526, MIS II Phase, Sector-A, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore — 64 2 2. The Central administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Branch, Bangalore, by its Registrar. (By Dr. M,S .Nagaraj, Mv.) ... RESPOENTS -000— This is a writ petition filed under rtiles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petiti’-ners praying to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari/ Mandamus to quash the order in O.A.No.1001/96, at 27—2—98 passed bY the Central Mministrative Tribunal, Bangalore vide Annexure— & dismiss O..No.10O1/96 filed by the rspt This petition is coming on for Preliminary hearing, SETH!, CHIEF JUSTICE made the following; —2— LLLLI We have heard the learned Coateel appearing for the petitioners and perused the records. 2. Jo ground is made out to interfere with the order of tie Central Administrative Tribunal, Bagelore Ranch, Bengalore, which has after quashing the impugned orders vide Annexures 1—6 to A-B directed petitioners to promote the applicant (respodat—1) to the post of Investigator from the date his junior was promoted wit all conaequntial benefits. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that in flew of adverse AORs first respondent could not be promoted • We do not agree with This submission in view of the Judgment of the Tribunal in Application No.1052/95, decided on 9-1—1995 directing consideration of the case of 1 at respondent by stepping up one level higher in the ACRe and if he makes the Bench mark grading 1 to be promoted on regular basis. Stepting up of one level in the ICR. entitles the let respondent for promotion, because it was deemed to be no adverse entry against him. The Tribunal has rightly fond K 43 * m 43 I Ii E r1tc, 0 43 4J 1) 04 43 • ri I