W.P.(C)--13147/2018. Case: AVTAR SINGH ARORA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | W.P.(C)--13147/2018 |
| Citation | NA |
| Judgement Date | December 04, 2019 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 25th Decided on: 4th
W.P.(C) 13147/2018
AVTAR SINGH ARORA
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..
Through: Mr. Arun Bhardwaj Naresh Kaushik, Advocates.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
J U D G M E N T
%
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. :
-
The Petitioner, who is an Additional Director General Mechanical) [„ADG (E&M)] in the Central Public Works („CPWD‟), has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal („CAT‟) dated 22nd November, 2018 in OA 2018, filed by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is the Union of India the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Respondent
W.P.(C) 13147/2018 Page
Director General, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Respondent 3 is the Union Public Services Commission („UPSC‟).
-
By the above impugned order, the CAT rejected the Petitioner‟s setting aside the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 4th December, 2017, whereby the Petitioner was declared promotion to the post of Special Director General (Electricity & [„SDG (E&M)‟].
-
The background facts are that the Petitioner joined as an Assistant Executive Engineer (E&M) in 1983. He was able to secure timely promotions,
2012, got promoted as Chief Engineer. On 6th August, 2014 the Petitioner communicated his Annual Performance Appraisal Report („APAR‟)
period between 13th June, 2013 and 31st March, 2014. In the APAR for the said period, the Petitioner was given zero points against Column No. 3.1 (ii grading of 5.63 by the Reviewing Authority („RA‟). The Reporting („RO‟), on the other hand, gave the Petitioner 7 points in the column and awarded him a grading of 7. The Accepting Authority („AA‟) gave the Petitioner a grading of 5 points. Based on the said grade Petitioner was awarded an overall grading of „Good‟, which was benchmark grading.
-
Aggrieved by the above grading, the Petitioner submitted a dated 14th August, 2014 to the Deputy Director (Admn-II), Director
W.P.(C) 13147/2018 Page
CPWD. By an order dated 13th February, 2015, the Minister of Development, who was the Competent Authority („CA‟), upgraded Petitioner‟s APAR to „Very Good‟ by awarding him 6.57 grade points.
-
In its meeting on 18th December, 2015, the DPC considered promotion to the post of ADG (E&M) and the Petitioner‟s recommended. Based on the DPC‟s recommendation, an Office Order dated 1 April, 2016 was issued promoting the Petitioner to the post of ADG (E&M).
-
In the DPC meeting convened on 4th December, 2017, the Petitioner‟s for promotion to the post of SDG (E&M) against the vacancy year considered. The DPC found the Petitioner to be „unfit‟ for promotio said post on the following basis:
“While examining the APAR for the year-2013-14 (from
13.06.2013 to 31.03;2014) the Committee noted that the Reporting Officer has given 7,00 numerical grading and the Reviewing Officer has given final, grading 5.63, while the Accepting Authority has given 5.00 numerical grading. The Committee went through the letter-dated 13.02.2015 by which the gradepoint has been raised to 6.57 by the Competent Authority. remarks or attributes recorded in various columns of the APAR also do not commensurate with the overall grading. Committee, therefore, took a conscious decision to grade officer for the year 2013-14 as “Good” only. Based on this, Committee assessed Shri Avtar Singh Arora as unfit for promotion to the post of Special Director General (Electrical & Mechanical) in the Central Public Works Department, Ministry of Housing Urban Affairs for the vacancy year 2018.”
W.P.(C) 13147/2018 Page
-
Aggrieved by the above decision reached by the DPC in its meeting December 2017, the Petitioner submitted a representation to the State, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs urging that a Review conducted to revise his APAR to „Very Good‟, and consider his promotion to SDG (E&M).
-
On 31st May, 2018 the Petitioner filed an RTI under the Right to Information Act, 2005 enquiring about the decision in connection with the representation. In a response dated 1st June, 2018, the Petitioner office notings in relation to his representation. It is stated that Petitioner‟s representation came to be rejected. He then filed O.A.
2018 before the CAT challenging the minutes of the DPC convened December, 2017.
-
The stand taken by the Petitioner before the CAT is identical averments in the present writ petition. The Respondents filed short affidavits in response to the Petitioner‟s O.A., placing reliance on OMs by the DoPT dated 10th April, 1989 and 9th May, 2014 in respect functioning of DPCs to contend that DPCs enjoyed full discretion to arrive at a determination of a candidate‟s suitability for promotion to a higher Respondent No. 3 also sought to contend the reliance by the Petitioner decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijeet Ghosh Dastidar v. Union and Ors. (2009) 16 SCC 146 , was misplaced since the APAR for 2013
W.P.(C) 13147/2018 Page
been duly communicated to the Petitioner. The rejoinder filed by the herein largely reiterated his stand in the O.A.
-
The said impugned order of the CAT placed reliance on paragraph OM dated 9th May, 2014 issued by the DoPT. In dismissing the O.A. the Petitioner, the CAT held as under:
“9. In this regard, it needs to be observed that the higher the level of the post under consideration by the DPC, the closer would be the scrutiny of the APARs. The persons to be selected to hold the posts at higher level are required to be of high accomplishments, and unstinted integrity. Seniority and average performance alone will not do. The instructions are to the effect that even where the APARs are consistently 'Very Good' for the period in question, the other attributes of the Officer, having a bearing on his suitability to the post, need to be examined. The scrutiny is required to be much more where the APAR of any year for the period in question has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial