Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1222 (PAT)

Binod Kumar Singh v. Union Of India

2007-07-26

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. By way of this writ application petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to grant him promotion from 1.9.2002 to the post of Subedar with all consequential benefits which is the date juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion to the post in question. 3. Petitioner in the writ application has questioned the wisdom of the authorities concerned while assessing his over all performance for the concerned year. His annual report for one particular year has cost him his promotion. Admitted position is that at the time when the matter for promotion was taken up petitioner had outstanding and very good record for the year 2000 to 2001. However, for the year 2002 even though the initiating officer had graded him 7 reviewing officer had downgraded him to 5 and the superior reviewing officer to 3. Petitioner required three outstanding/very good entries before he could be granted next higher post. Petitioner submits that the downgrading which has been done by the R.O. and thereafter S.R.O. amounts to adverse entry and the same ought to have been communicated to him but it was not done by the authorities. In absence of communication to the petitioner the same could not be held out against him in the matter of promotion. Petitioner also hints at mala fide in the matter of non-grant of promotion to him. 4. A counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents has been filed and the respondents have stated that for one year, i.e., for the year 2002 grading and ranking which were granted by the authorities to him did not allow the petitioner to cross the threshold and get promoted to the next post of Subedar. They have categorically stated that the matter was examined and reviewed by the various authorities and they had full occasion to judge the conduct and performance of the petitioner before they awarded grades in question. They further assert that marks awarded for annual appraisal is one thing and entry in A.C.R. another. Since the grading is not akin to adverse entry, therefore, they was no occasion to communicate the same to the petitioner. Petitioner Could be aggrieved but then from the reports it is he himself to be blamed for the situation today. They further assert that marks awarded for annual appraisal is one thing and entry in A.C.R. another. Since the grading is not akin to adverse entry, therefore, they was no occasion to communicate the same to the petitioner. Petitioner Could be aggrieved but then from the reports it is he himself to be blamed for the situation today. The petitioner ought to have taken care to maintain a good grade in his performance for the year. Marks are awarded on many parameters and there is no element of subjectivity being introduced by the superior officer while grading. Respondents have indicated in para 31 of the counter affidavit some reason why the petitioner had slipped in his recent performance. 5. This Court, therefore, does not find any error with regard to the non-grant of promotion to the petitioner. Petitioner missed out on his promotion because he did not have the requisite grades. In this view of the matter there is no occasion for this court to interfere with the decision of the respondents or for directing the respondents to reconsider the matter. 6. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.