JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner D.C.S. Negi, a member of the Indian defense Accounts Service (in short, IDAS), by this writ petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 14.5.2007, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing his OA No. 1316/2007. Petitioner by the said OA, had sought re-consideration of his promotion to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the IDAS cadre w.e.f. 2.6.2003 instead of 10.5.2006.
2. Petitioner was selected in the IDAS in December, 1982. He claims an unblemished career with record of regular promotions. Petitioner claims to have held responsible positions on deputation and otherwise as Assistant Financial Advisor, Ministry of Finance, Joint Controller of defense Accounts, Finance Officer of the Indian Meteorological Department and lastly, as Controller of defense Accounts, New Delhi, w.e.f. 11.5.2006. Petitioner avers that he has never faced any complaints and no adverse remarks have ever been communicated to him during his entire career.
3. On 2.6.2003, a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting had taken place for promotion to the post of Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) of the Indian defense Accounts Service. Petitioner, to his dismay, found that officers junior to him were recommended for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade superseding the petitioner. It is the petitioner’s case that on learning that DPC had not empanelled him and not recommended him for promotion, he submitted a representation dated 7.7.2003 to the Prime Minister. It is his case that the said representation resulted in the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) headed by the Prime Minister, disagreeing with the recommendations of the DPC. Petitioner contends that despite directions to the Cabinet Secretary, DOP&T and Ministry of defense to promote the petitioner, the said directions have been deliberately ignored by them and they have not followed the methodology laid down in the DOP&T’s OM dated 20.5.1972.
This very contention was raised by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal on examination of the minutes of DPC for promotion to SAG produced by the respondents, found that the contentions of the petitioner were not substantiated. No disagreement by ACC was found. Rather, the ACC had approved the minutes of the DPC and persons recommended and empanelled for promotions to SAG were approved and effectuated.
4. The respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal had contended that the representation preferred by the petitioner was yet to be received by them after processing and nothing had been included either by the ACC or from the office of the Prime Minister in regard thereto. The Tribunal did not go further into the merits of the grievances of the petitioner for non-promotion holding that he had been duly considered for promotion in accordance with the Rules and was found unfit. The Tribunal also did not act on the apprehension of the petitioner that respondents were withholding the directions given by the Prime Minister and disagreement of the ACC with the finding of the DPC.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Ms. Jyoti Singh submitted before us that the respondent had not produced before the Tribunal the disagreement expressed by the ACC headed by the Prime Minister on the recommendation of the DPC qua the petitioner, following the representation of the petitioner and that the original file of the ACC dealing with the representation should be called for. Learned Counsel for the petitioner had urged that the above would show that the ACC in the first instance, had disagreed with the recommendation of the DPC and recorded that the petitioner should be promoted to SAG grade. Further, that on the representation of the petitioner, the ACC had similarly recorded that he should be promoted. The directions were issued for production of the record and the respondents have produced the file in relation to the promotion of the officers to the Senior Administrative Grade of the IDAS. The said file has been perused by us.
6. The note proposed before the ACC duly covered cases including that of the petitioner who was found ‘unfit for promotion’ and of another officer in respect of whom, the recommendation had been kept in sealed cover. The note and the file was duly processed and approved by the ACC. The file does not disclose any disagreement of the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet with the recommendation of the DPC. Respondent during the hearing before us, produced letter No. PMO I.D. No. 855/42/C/1/2003/ Pol. dated 1.4.2008 to the effect that the representation of the petitioner’s wife dated 7.7.2003 had been duly forwarded to the Ministry of defense. Based on the conclusion of the Ministry of defense that the representation was unsustainable, the same has been filed. With the aforesaid certification, curtain must come down on the petitioner’s repeated pleas of claiming that the ACC headed by the Prime Minister had disagreed with the DPC and directed promotion to be given to the petitioner. A similar response has been sent to a representation received through a Member of Parliament.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next contended that the Tribunal had not considered the petitioner’s plea regarding downgrading of the petitioner below the benchmark of ‘Very Good’ without communication. Accordingly, the assessment for the year in which the petitioner may not have met the benchmark, could not be taken in for consideration on account of it being vitiated due to its non-communication to the petitioner.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents in response submitted that the DPC constituted under the aegis of the UPSC, adopted the guidelines contained in the Department of Personnel and Training Memorandum No. 22011/5/86/Estt./D dated 10.4.1999. In terms of the above guidelines, the benchmark for promotion to the SAG of the IDAS is ‘Very Good’. The DPC which enjoys full discretion to devise his own method and procedure for objective assessment and the suitability of the candidates was required to grade the officers as ‘fit’ or ‘unfit’ only. The ACRs for the year 1997-98 to 2001-02 had been duly considered by the DPC. Petitioner did not make the grade. Respondents averred that in the DPC meeting held subsequently on 22.3.2006, the petitioner was also recommended and promoted as of 10.5.2006 to the Senior Administrative Grade. The non-placement of the petitioner in the select panel was on account of the DPC in June 2003 not finding him fit. The parameters that were applied to all other officers were also applied to the petitioner and there is no question of any discrimination or hostile treatment. Respondents contended that in the petitioner’s department, 3 tier system of writing of ACRs is followed, i.e. by Reporting Officer, then by Reviewing Officer and finally by Accepting Officer. Moreover, it is entirely for the DPC to make its own assessment of officers being considered for promotion by consideration of all the relevant information and assessment of various traits including the overall rating. The UPSC contended before the Tribunal that the DPC was not guided solely by the overall grading in the CRs but made its own independent assessment on the basis of various attributes in the CRs as required under the DPC instructions. As a result of a ‘fair and just assessment’ made by the DPC, the applicant could not make it to the benchmark of ‘Very Good’ and was thus not recommended for promotion by the DPC holding him to be ‘unfit’. Learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the case of ‘Union of India v. Major Bahadur Singh’ as also the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 555/2001 in ‘Dr. A.K. Dawar v. Union of India’ in which it was held that if there was no downgrading of the concerned person in the ACR, the grading of ‘Good’ given to the Government employee irrespective of the benchmark for the next promotion being ‘Very Good’, need not be communicated. The Award of a grading which is below the benchmark itself may not in all cases call for it to be treated as an adverse remark requiring communication.
9. We may also refer to the Office Memorandum No. 21011/3/83-Estt(A) dated 30.12.1983 on the subject to confidential reports ‘ communication of fall in standards as adverse remarks. The said Office Memorandum is reproduced below for the facility of reference:
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject : Confidential Reports ‘ Communication of fall in the standard as adverse remarks.
The undersigned is directed to say that Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 51/3/68-Estt ‘A’ dated 2nd March, 1968, which is incorporated in the consolidated OM No. 51/5/72-Estt.’A’ dated 20.5.1970 as sub-paragraph (c) of para 8.2 and the footnote thereto provides for communication to an officer of the fall in standards, if any, in relation to his past performance as revealed through his annual Confidential Reports. The instructions dated 2nd March, 1968 were issued at a time when the practice of giving the grading in the Confidential Report itself was in vogue, and it was, therefore, possible to say whether or not there had been a fall in standards of an officer by comparing his annual Confidential Reports. However, with the abolition of the system of grading, by the instructions contained in Ministry of Home Affairs O.M. No. 51/11/65-Estt.(A) dated 6th March, 1968, there was no practical way of addressing fall in standards of an officer and communicating the same to him. Even so, the instruction relating to communication of a fall in standards, contained in the O.M. of 2nd March, 1968, was not formally withdrawn. This also came to be incorporated in the consolidated instructions contained in this Department OM No. 51/5/72 ‘Estt. ‘A’ dated 20th May, 1972.
2. Further, the instructions relating to the procedure for Departmental Promotion Committees contained in this Department’s OM No. 22011/6/75-Estt.’D’ dated 20th December, 1976 provide that where promotions are to be made by selection method, officers in the field of selection should be classified by the Departmental Promotion Committee themselves as ‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, and ‘Good’ on the basis of their merit as assessed by the DPC after examination of their respective records of service. It is also made clear therein that it is entirely for the DPC to make its own classification of the officer being considered by them for promotion to selection posts irrespective of the grading that may be shown in the Confidential Report itself. In view of this position, it is neither necessary nor practicable to communicate fall in standards to an officer in relation to his past performance as revealed through his annual confidential Reports.
3. Accordingly, it has been decided that the instructions contained in the Ministry of Home Affairs OM No. 51/3/68-Estt ‘A’ dated 2nd March, 1968 may be cancelled. Consequently, sub-para (c) in para 8.2 of this Department OM No. 51/5/72-Estt ‘A’ dated 20th May, 1972, together with the footnote relating thereto, may also be treated as cancelled.
It would be seen that the above Memorandum specifically provides that in case of selection through DPC, officers in the field of a selection, should be classified by the DPC after examination of their respective records of service. The said Memorandum makes it clear that irrespective of the grades given in the Confidential Report, it is entirely for the DPC to make its own classification. In view of the above decision, it is neither necessary nor practical to communicate fall in standards to an Officer in relation to his past performance as revealed through his Confidential Reports.
10. We also note that the DPC held under the aegis of the UPSC is an expert body and there have been no allegations of any malafides or of procedural irregularities. In these circumstances, the Tribunal or the writ court does not sit in appeal over the decision of the DPC approved by the ACC in holding the petitioner as ‘unfit’.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.