Judgment :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr. S. Sellapandiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Sridhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel representing the first respondent, Mr. K. Elango, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr. P. Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the third respondent and have perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 28. 2005 made in O.A. No. 1021 of 2004, the petitioner has filed the W.P. No. 30680 of 2005. The petitioner belongs to Indian Postal Service [for short, IPS] and his grievance was on promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade at Post Master General level, he was overlooked and more than 86 Officers belonging to 1970 to 1988 batch of IPS had superceded him. The petitioner earlier had filed O.A. No. 1025 of 1995 seeking for direction to the respondent to promote him as the Senior Administrative Grade from the 1995 panel. By an order dated 111. 1996, his Original Application was dismissed holding that in the Departmental Promotion Committees [DPC for short] ratings, the petitioners ratings were low and, therefore, the question of considering his promotion may not arise and the DPC had found him not fit for promotion. Thereafter, the second O.A. was filed by the petitioner. 3. The Tribunal held that the claim of the petitioner for Senior Administrative Grade Level Level – II was carefully considered by the DPC, which was chaired by the member of the Union Public Service Commission and after perusing the DPC Proceedings, the Tribunal rendered a finding that the applicants assessment for some years was good and for some years, it was shown as unfit. The Tribunal also rejected the allegation of mala fide against certain officers and such allegations have been made without even making the officers as parties to the O.A. It also held that the DPC decisions were guided by the entries made in Annual Confidential Reports and not due to any extraneous considerations. It also held that when the petitioner did not succeed in moving from Junior Administrative Officer to Senior Administrative Officer Level – II and I, his claim to the post of Secretary for the Department is far-fetched and unsustainable. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It also held that when the petitioner did not succeed in moving from Junior Administrative Officer to Senior Administrative Officer Level – II and I, his claim to the post of Secretary for the Department is far-fetched and unsustainable. As against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. On behalf of the first respondent, a detailed counter affidavit has also been filed. In paragraph 4 of the counter, it is stated as follows: Para 4: "As regards para -2, it is submitted that it is a fact that the promotion is based on assessment of Annual Confidential Reports, shortly called as ACRs of the officer by the DPC. The entire object of the ACRs is to assess the performance of the officer during the year. For the purpose of promotion, normally the ACRs of five preceding years are taken into consideration. The DPC fixes its norm and makes an independent objective assessment and arrives at a grading taking into account the totality of the performance. Thus, if a Government servant has consistently good record but does not have the prescribed bench mark, the DPC does not hold him suitable for higher grade." In paragraph 10, it is stated as follows: Para 10: "It is further submitted that the orders of the CAT, Madras Bench is just, fair and reasonable. The petitioner was considered for promotion from 1989 onwards, but was not found fit for promotion. The successive DPCs, after considering the service records did not find fit for promotion to the higher grade. (A) The orders of the CAT, Madras Bench is just fair and reasonable. The contention of the officer is not correct. The applicant was considered for promotion from 1989 onwards but he was not found fit for promotion. The successive DPCs after considering his service records did not find him fit for promotion to the higher grade." 5. Even though Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, tried to submit that his client has been overlooking unjustly, Mr. K. Elango, learned counsel contended that the Department has no particular animous against the petitioner and the DPC strictly adhered to the norms involving in the promotion. Even though Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, tried to submit that his client has been overlooking unjustly, Mr. K. Elango, learned counsel contended that the Department has no particular animous against the petitioner and the DPC strictly adhered to the norms involving in the promotion. In fact, the petitioner did not even challenge the earlier order where he was given promotion to the lower level and that order has become final and, therefore, there is no question of the petitioner having any grievance against the Department. In fact, the letter dated 20.9.2004 written by the Director of Staff, Ministry of communication, Department of Posts, clearly shows that the Department has forwarded the name of the petitioner to the UPSC to be promoted to the Post Master General Grade for the last ten years and his candidature was not recommended by the UPSC. 6. In the light of the above, we do not find any case made out to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, W.P. No. 30680 of 2005 is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 7. In the other writ petition being W.P. No. 3211 of 2005, the order that is under challenge is the communication dated 20.9.2004 informing that the petitioners case was not considered by the UPSC though the Department had forwarded his name for more than 10 years and when the petitioner sought to challenge this order, the Original Application was not numbered and return was made in Diary No. 4011 of 2004 dated 210. 2004 holding that no question of any damage can be granted by the Tribunal. It is against this order made in Diary No. 4011 of 2004, W.P. No. 3211 of 2005 has been filed. 8. Since W.P. No. 30680 of 2005 is dismissed, we do not think there is any case made out for entertaining the present writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is also dismissed. No costs.