LexUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus A.K.NARULA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ....,... v. A.K.NARULA MAY 18,2007 B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,CJ.ANDR.V. RA VEENDRAN,J.] Service Law: Proniotion-Selection, process of-Post of Second-in- --";'· .... Command-Assessment on basis of confidential reports of last five years- c Bench mark of 'very good'-Candidate having three ratings of 'good' and two of 'very good'-Overall rating of 'good' by Departmental Promotion Committee and candidate not empanelled-Candidates' case that his service record similar to the promoted officer-DCP upgraded rating of promoted officer from 'good' to· 'very good', giving overall rating of 'very good' and as t.'.· such candidates' rating 'good' to be upgraded to 'very good~ upgrading ,,,. D overall grading to 'very good', and name to be included in the approved list-Held: Candidate's case different from promoted officer-CR shows that ... promoted officer deserved upgradation and not the candidate-Review DPC I' was to examine the case on merits-Thus, the decision of review DPC that candidate did not deserve upgradation from 'good' to 'very good~ upheld- E Though the candidate is promoted but is not entitled to promotion from retrospective effect. Recruitment Rules required promotions to be made by selection. Departmental Promotion Committee directed that Confidential Reports to be the basic inputs for assessment. DPC considered the CRs of eligible Assistant F Commandants for promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command. Benchmark for promotion to the rank of Second-in-Command was 'very good'. A candidate was to have four 'very good' reports of ACRs out of last 5 ACRs including the ACR for the latest year and was to have no adverse remarks in CRs. DPC empanelled for promotion, officers graded as 'very good' and officers as 'good'. Respondent-Assistant Commandant had three ratings of 'good' for the years G 1985-86, 1987-88 and 1988-89 and two ratings of'very good' for the years 1986-87 and 1989-90, and as such the DPC gave him overall rating of 'good'. The first nineteen in the list of officers with the rating 'good'. were empanelled · and promoted. However, respondent's name did not figure in the list. '1- H 262 - U.0.1 v. A.K. NARULA 263 Respondent filed writ petition seeking promotion since his service A record was similar to that RS-Assistant Commandant, who was promoted. It was submitted that both had secured 'very good' for three years and 'good' for two years, during the five years under consideration; that DPC upgraded the rating of RS for the year 1988-89 from 'good' to 'very good' and, gave him the overall rating of 'very good'; that in respect of the year 1987-88, his B case was similar to that of RS for 1988-89, and therefore his rating for 1987- 88 ought to have been upgraded from 'good' to 'very good', thereby becoming entitled to be placed in the block of 'very good' candidates selected for promotion. During pendency of the writ petition respondent was promoted. Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants-Union oflndia to include the name of the respondent in the approved C list of Assistant Commandants for appointment to the rank of Second-in- Command from the date when anyone junior to him was promoted as Second- in-Command. Appellant filed appeals. Division Bench of High Court partly allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Single Judge and directed the DPC to reconsider the respondent's case. A review DPC held that no case was made out to upgrade respondent's rating for 1987-88 from 'good' to 'very D good' and consequently, the overall rating of respondent remained 'good' and DPC did not recommend his case for promotion from retrospective effect. Competent authority approved the recommendations of the review DPC and passed an order. Respondent challenged the same and sought promotion with retrospective effect. Division Bench of the High Court allowed the petition E and directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion with reference to the DPC held on 13.6.1990 by treating the entry for the year 1987-88 as 'very good'. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In view of the finding that the case of respondent was different from that of RS, the decision of Review DPC that the respondent did not deserve upgradation from 'good' to 'very good' is upheld. (Para 18) (274-C) F 2.1. The records of RS disclosed that for the year
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.