9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seniority list whereas the respondents 3 to 6 were at S.No. 14, 16 and 19. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said action on the part of the respondents in promoting the said respondents in supersession of his claim, he filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi questioning the said order dated 2nd February, 1998 which was marked as Original Application No. 2389/99 in June, 1999. Two other persons, namely, Mr. R.K. Kakkar and Mr. A.S. Sanyal were also granted promotions. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 14th September, 2000 the petitioner's Original Application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. A review application was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by an order dated 25th October, 2000. 5. The short question which has been raised in this writ petition is that in view of the fact that a bench mark of three 'very good' within a period of five years was required for the purposes of promotion having regard to the purported fall in standard it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to communicate the same to the petitioner pursuant to or in furtherance of Rule 9 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fall in standard of an officer in relation to his past performances, he has an obligation to draw his attention to the said effect so that he can be altered for improving his performance. Such communication, a bare perusal of the Rule would clearly demonstrate, was necessary so as to prevent sufferance of service prospect by the employee concerned by way of ignorance as regards deterioration in his performance. It stands admitted that the petitioner was not communicated about such fall in standards. 8. In U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court has clearly held: We need to explain these observations of the High Court. The Nigam has rules, whereunder an adverse entry is required to be communicated to the employee concerned, but not downgrading of an entry. It has been urged on behalf of the Nigam that when the nature of the entry does not reflect any adverseness that is not required to be communicated. As we view it the extreme illustration given by the High Court may reflect an adverse element compulsorily communicable, but if the graded entry is of going a step down, like failing from 'very good' to 'good' that may not ordinarily be an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstant case the learned Tribunal had adopted a procedure which is unknown in law. It is not in dispute that for the purpose of promotion no written examination is held nor any interview is taken. The Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short) makes its own grading solely relying on or on the basis of the ACRs of the candidates concerned. Before us, a chart has been placed to show that the other promoted candidates had fulfillled the prescribed bench mark which is in the following terms: S No. Name Date of birth 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 1 . T.S. Garg 25.10.42 Good Good Good V.G. Good V.G. Good 2. Y.S. Sardar 28.03.42 O.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In these years as well as overall grading has been only 'Good' and this five years period reckoned either way he has got only two 'Very Good' and he could not have been categorized as 'Very Good' by the DPC. We, therefore, find no fault in the assessment made by the DPC. 13. The learned Tribunal, in our opinion, committed a serious misdirection in law in so far as it failed to pose unto itself a right question so as to enable it to arrive at a correct finding of fact with a view to give a correct answer. The question which was posed before the learned Tribunal was not that whether the petitioner had been correctly rated by the DPC? The question, as noticed hereinbefore, which arose for consideration before the learned Tribunal as also before us was as to whether having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in U.P. Jal Nigam and Ors. (Supra) as also Rule 9 of the CPWD Manual the concerned respondents had acted illegally in not communicating his 'fall in standard'. It is not trite that the court or the Tribunal cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the statutory authority but it is also a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of this c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s satisfied that a local authority have acted or are proposing to act improperly or unreasonably, then the Minister should obey all the elementary rules of fairness before he finds that the local authority are guilty or before he takes drastic action overruling them. He should give the party affected notice of the charge of impropriety or unreasonableness and a fair opportunity of dealing with it. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State did so in this case. He had before him the written proposals of the new council and he met their leaders. In addition, however, the Minister must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to that which he has to consider. And the decision to which he comes must be one which is reasonable in this sense, that it is, or can be, supported with good reasons or at any rate be a decision which a reasonable person might reasonably reach. Scarman, J observed: ...But, first, I think that the epithet 'subjective' is of no assistance in this context. The point of principle is simply that it is not a ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d is really to be deduced from a well-known passage in Professor de Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd Edn.(1973) P 320), where he says: 'Secondly, a court may hold that it can interfere if the competent authority has misdirected itself by applying a wrong legal test to the question before it, or by misunderstanding the nature of the matter in respect of which it has to be satisfied. Such criteria are sufficiently elastic to justify either a broad or a narrow test of validity; and they seem to have become increasingly popular. Thirdly, a court may state its readiness to interfere if there are no grounds on which a reasonable authority could have been satisfied as to the existence of the conditions precedent. This test can be combined with the first and the second.' I would add by way of parenthesis and somewhat out of place that in the present case the evidence now before the court does show that the Secretary of State either misunderstood or was not informed as to the nature and effect of the professional educational advice available to the authority. I have already put in my own words the situation which I think, in addition to tho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
