Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 450 (HP)

Brijesh Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2021-07-23

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.9.2012, passed by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 21.5.2012 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8138 of 2010-J, came to be rejected, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following relief:- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the averments made in the petition, the preset petition may kindly be allowed and impugned annexures P-5 & P-9, letters dated 18.09.2010 & 20.9.2012 may please be ordered to be quashed and set-aside by issuing a writ of certiorari, with the directions to the respondents to review the DPC proceedings as prayed for in the representation with the further directions to the respondents to assign the appropriate/correct place to the petitioner in the merit list keeping in view the entries made in his ACR's & promote him earlier in point of time before all the respondents 4-9, after comparing the entries made in their ACR's & to redraw annexure P-3 & to grant all the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay to the petitioner with interest @ 18% per annum in the interest of justice & keeping in view the submissions made here in above." 2. For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner initially was recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the respondent Department on 9th July, 1996. In the year 2001, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector, whereafter in that capacity he remained posted at various Police stations in the State and headed the police stations in the capacity of Station House Officer. On 7.4.2007, the petitioner was confirmed as Inspector in the respondent department. On 30.09.2008, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') in its meeting also considered the name of the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates against 18 general vacancies of Dy. S.P. After assessing ACRs of all the eligible candidates, DPC recommended the name of the petitioner and other eligible candidates for being promoted to the post of Dy. S.P., in order of merit, to the H.P. Police Service (Class-I-Gazetted), in the Department of police, Himachal Pradesh, where the name of petitioner finds mention at Sr. No. 14. S.P. After assessing ACRs of all the eligible candidates, DPC recommended the name of the petitioner and other eligible candidates for being promoted to the post of Dy. S.P., in order of merit, to the H.P. Police Service (Class-I-Gazetted), in the Department of police, Himachal Pradesh, where the name of petitioner finds mention at Sr. No. 14. Since, the petitioner was expecting his placement higher in the merit list drawn by DPC in its meeting held on 30.9.2008, he applied for information under Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to his entries made in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR's). Since petitioner was graded as "Outstanding" officer for the relevant years, which were to be taken into consideration while considering his case for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. and DPC of its own without affording him an opportunity of being heard proceeded to downgrade his entries, petitioner preferred a detailed representation dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure P-4), requesting therein to review the proceedings of DPC held on 30.9.2008 with further prayer to place him at appropriate place in the promotion list of DSP of 2008. However, fact remains that representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 18.9.2010 (Annexure P-5). Petitioner with a view to know the reasons for rejection of the representation again applied under Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein he was informed that DPC might have considered the gradations of ACR's of the petitioner as "Very Good" instead of "Outstanding" and as such, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 8138 of 2010-J. 3. Since grounds/pleas taken by the petitioner in the representation were not considered and decided by the competent authority and no specific reason was assigned, Co-ordinate bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.5.2012 allowed the writ petition bearing CWP No. 8138 of 2010-J having been filed by the petitioner and remanded the case back to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh with the direction to decide the representation made by the petitioner afresh by assigning reasons. Vide aforesaid judgment Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also ordered that in case the representation made by the petitioner is considered favourably, the necessary consequential steps, i.e. convening of DPC shall be taken within 10 weeks. 4. Vide aforesaid judgment Co-ordinate Bench of this Court also ordered that in case the representation made by the petitioner is considered favourably, the necessary consequential steps, i.e. convening of DPC shall be taken within 10 weeks. 4. Pursuant to aforesaid direction issued by Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier civil writ petition having been filed by the petitioner, representation having been filed by the petitioner again came to be considered by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who vide order dated 20.9.2012 rejected the representation and observed that the assessment has been independently done by the DPC headed by the members of the Constitutional Authority i.e. Member of the H.P. Public Service Commission keeping in view the overall grading in various columns. Authority, as referred above, further observed in the order that merely grading the Officer as "Outstanding" in his ACRs without reasons is not a ground to consider him as "Outstanding" and it is for the DPC to make his own independent assessment on the basis of overall grading in the ACRs. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the relief, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 5. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the record. 6. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that since in all the ACRs, which were relevant for consideration of the name of the petitioner for promotion of Dy. S.P., petitioner was assessed to be "Outstanding" (Annexure P-2 colly), there was no occasion for DPC to downgrade the same to "Very Good" while considering him for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. alongwith other eligible candidates. While referring to Annexure P-2(Colly) wherein ACR's pertaining to relevant period have been placed on record, Mr. Negi, argued that since petitioner was assessed or graded to be "Outstanding" in the relevant ACR's, DPC without assigning any reason could not have proceeded to downgrade the entry of "Outstanding" to "Very Good" while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., alongwith other eligible candidates. While referring to the Minutes of Meeting of the DPC held on 30.9.2008, Mr. S.P., alongwith other eligible candidates. While referring to the Minutes of Meeting of the DPC held on 30.9.2008, Mr. Negi, contended that DPC while assessing the petitioner to be "Very Good" despite there being "Outstanding" entries in his ACRs, nowhere assigned reasons for downgrading him and as such, recommendation of DPC meeting held on 30.9.2008 cannot be said to be fair and based upon proper appreciation of the record and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain. 7. Mr. Negi, further argued that Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh while passing order dated 20.9.2012 on the representation filed by the petitioner has given altogether new reasons, which otherwise never came to be recorded by the DPC held on 30.9.2008. While referring to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in most celebrated case i.e. Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 , Mr. Negi, strenuously argued that whenever a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning, may by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. Mr. Negi, also placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and others, (2005) 10 SCC 15 , to argue that though Selection Committee can evolve its own classification, which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs, but Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that in a case of gradation at variance with that of State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. 8. Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents-State and Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel representing respondents No. 5 to 9 while refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.9.2012 passed by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. All the above named counsel contended that since independent assessment has been done by DPC taking into consideration overall service record of the petitioner, no fault, if any, can be found in the same. All the above named counsel contended that since independent assessment has been done by DPC taking into consideration overall service record of the petitioner, no fault, if any, can be found in the same. Learned counsel representing the respondents further argued that otherwise bare perusal of ACRs placed on record itself suggest that grading given by Reporting Officer against various columns do not commensurate with the final grading given by the Reviewing Officer. Learned Additional Advocate General while inviting attention of this Court to Chapter-19 and Chapter-16 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters, argued that DPC is well within its right to evolve its own classification, which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs and as such, no judicial interference, if any, is called for. 9. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General while referring to Clause 19.8.5 of Chapter-19, which deals with Annual Confidential Report argued that the Reporting/Reviewing Officers shall exercise great restraint while making an entry of an officer/official as "Outstanding". If such an entry is to be made, details of specific performance and achievements justifying the entry should be recorded in the A.C.Rs of the officers/officials. He argued that since no such specific reasons/details have been given by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer while recording 'Outstanding" in the case of the petitioner, DPC rightly considered the grading of the petitioner to be "Very Good" on the basis of overall grading in the ACRs. 10. It is not in dispute that claim of the petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates came to be considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 30.9.2008 for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. It is also not in dispute that DPC recommended the name of petitioner alongwith other 18 Inspectors of police for promotion to the H.P. Police Service (Class-I Gazetted) in the year 2008, but his name came to be placed at Sr. No. 14 keeping in view his overall assessment. 11. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since petitioner was assessed "Outstanding" by the Reviewing Officer for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, DPC while considering him for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. could not have downgraded his entries from "Outstanding" to "Very Good". No. 14 keeping in view his overall assessment. 11. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since petitioner was assessed "Outstanding" by the Reviewing Officer for the year 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, DPC while considering him for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P. could not have downgraded his entries from "Outstanding" to "Very Good". However, having carefully perused the record of ACRs placed on record (Annexure P-2 colly), this Court finds substantial force in the arguments made by learned Additional Advocate General that once Reporting Officer had graded the petitioner "Good" and "Very Good" in majority of columns, there was no occasion, if any, for Reviewing Officer to grade the officer as "Outstanding" and as such, DPC being otherwise competent to upgrade/downgrade the ACRs on the basis of overall record, rightly downgraded the entries of the petitioner from "Outstanding" to "Very Good". 12. Careful perusal of ACR's, as contained in Annexure P-2, clearly reveals that Reporting Officer has given "Good/Very Good" to the petitioner against all the columns, but Reviewing Officer while accepting overall grading of petitioner given by Reporting Officer has graded him to be "Outstanding". Clause 19.8.5 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol.-II, Chapter 19, which deals with the Annual Confidential Report clearly prescribes the procedure for recording the "Outstanding" in the ACRs, which is reproduced as under:- "19.8.5 "Outstanding" entry in A.C.Rs As per above decision, the column for grading has been dispensed with. It has been decided by the Government that the Reporting/Reviewing Officers will exercise great restraint while making an entry of an officer/officials as ""Outstanding"". If such an entry is to be made, details of specific performance and achievement justifying the entry should be recorded in the A.C.Rs of the officers/officials." 13. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid provisions contained in the Hand Book on Personal Matters that Reporting/Reviewing Officers shall exercise great restraint while making an entry of an officer/official as "Outstanding". However, if such entry is to be made, details of specific performance and achievements justifying the entry should be recorded in the ACRs of the officers/officials. In the instant case, learned counsel representing the petitioner was unable to point out specific details, if any, of specific performance/achievements justifying the entry of "Outstanding" in the ACRs of the petitioner. However, if such entry is to be made, details of specific performance and achievements justifying the entry should be recorded in the ACRs of the officers/officials. In the instant case, learned counsel representing the petitioner was unable to point out specific details, if any, of specific performance/achievements justifying the entry of "Outstanding" in the ACRs of the petitioner. Otherwise also, this Court finds from the bare reading of ACRs placed on record that Reviewing Officer though have accepted the overall grading given by the Reporting Officer, but in remarks column without applying his/her mind has proceeded to grade the officer concerned as an "Outstanding" officer. Entries made in the ACRs, if read in its entirety, nowhere commensurate with the final grading given by the Reviewing Officer and as such, DPC after having carefully perused the entire service record of petitioner rightly proceeded to downgrade the entry of "Outstanding" recorded in favour of the petitioner to "Very Good". Entries of "Very Good" given by DPC while considering the petitioner for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., if examined in the light of overall grading given by the Reporting Officer, no fault, if any, can be found with the findings recorded by the DPC, rather same appears to have been recorded on the basis of proper appreciation of record, especially ACR's recorded by the Reporting Officer. 14. As far as competence of DPC to downgrade the entries recorded in the ACRs by the Reporting/Reviewing Officers, it would be profitable to take note of Clause 16.25 of Handbook on Personnel Matters (Chapter 16) i.e. principles for promotion to selection posts. Clause 16.25(e) empowers DPC to assess the confidential reports of the eligible officers for five years and classify them separately for each year as "Outstanding", "Very Good", "Good", and "Fair". The assessment and classification will be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the whole of a particular confidential report. Clause 16.25 (f) further provides the procedures to be adopted by the DPC for assessing the overall classification. Clause 16.25(e) and (f) are reproduced herein below:- "(e). The procedure evolved from 13.2.1978 was not comprehensive and was stated to be in supersession of all previous instructions/orders. Accordingly, the Govt. issued comprehensive instructions prescribing the procedure for preparing select list etc. Clause 16.25 (f) further provides the procedures to be adopted by the DPC for assessing the overall classification. Clause 16.25(e) and (f) are reproduced herein below:- "(e). The procedure evolved from 13.2.1978 was not comprehensive and was stated to be in supersession of all previous instructions/orders. Accordingly, the Govt. issued comprehensive instructions prescribing the procedure for preparing select list etc. on 27.7.1978, which provides that the Departmental Promotion Committee will assess the confidential repots of the eligible officers for five years and classify them separately for each year as ""Outstanding"", ""Very Good"", "Good", and "Fair". This assessment and classification will be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the whole of a particular confidential report. Each type of assessment shall carry marks as under:- Classification for each year shall be evaluated in the form of marks in the above manner and total marks worked out for five years, whereafter average marks shall be worked out by diving the total marks by the same member as the number of years for which confidential reports have been considered. An officer who gets marks 4.5 or above in this manner shall be considered to be of exceptional merit. One getting marks of 3.5 or above but below 4.5 shall be classified as ""Very Good"" and one getting in average of 2.5 or above but below 3.5 marks shall be classified as "Good". Officers who earn less than 2.5 average marks shall be classified as unfit for promotion. Those categorized as unfit will be excluded from the eligibility for promotion. In a particular slab of three, an officer classified as "Outstanding"(i.e. possessing exceptional merit) will supersede an officer classified as ""Very Good"" and officer classified as ""Very Good"" will supersede an officer classified as "Good". However, if in a slab of three more than one officer have the same classification, the selection will be made on the basis of seniority. Where the select list includes persons to whom proforma promotion is to be given, then the select list should further be extended to the extent of number of such persons. (H.P. Govt. Deptt. of personnel) O.M. No. PER(AP-II)A(3)-9/76 DATED 27-7-1978 Annexure-16.7). (f) From 16-3-1981 to 3-11-1981 In partial modification of the O.M. dated 27.7.1978 (sub para "g" above) the principles for promotion to selection posts were slightly revised from 16.3.1981. (H.P. Govt. Deptt. of personnel) O.M. No. PER(AP-II)A(3)-9/76 DATED 27-7-1978 Annexure-16.7). (f) From 16-3-1981 to 3-11-1981 In partial modification of the O.M. dated 27.7.1978 (sub para "g" above) the principles for promotion to selection posts were slightly revised from 16.3.1981. According to revised procedure the field of choice, subject to availability or eligible candidates, should extend to five time the number of vacancies within the year. From amongst the officers within the field of choice, those who are considered unfit for promotion should be excluded. The remaining officers should be classified "outstanding", "very Good", and "Good" on the basis of merit as determined from their record of service. For this purpose, Annual Confidential Reports for three to five years should be considered. After the above grading, the select list should be prepared by placing the names in order of these three categories, without disturbing the seniority inter se within each category." The procedure for assessing the overall classification shall be as under:- (i). The Department Promotion Committee will assess the confidential reports of the eligible officers for five years and classify them separately for each year, as "Outstanding", "Very Good" and "Fair". The assessment of classification will be made by the Departmental Promotion Committee after considering the whole of a particular confidential report. 15. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid provisions contained in Hand Book on personnel matters (Chapter 16) that DPC is well within its right to upgrade/downgrade the ACRs of person to be considered for promotion and it is not bound to mechanically follow the grading given by Reporting/Reviewing Officer. Otherwise also, if the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in UPSC versus K. Rajaiah and others (2005) 10 SCC 15 , is read in entirety, it nowhere suggests that DPC cannot tinker with the entries recorded by Reporting/Reviewing Officer, rather aforesaid judgment clearly lays down that classification given by the State Government is not binding on the committee and committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para-9 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- "9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent. At this stage, it would be profitable to reproduce para-9 of the aforesaid judgment herein:- "9. We cannot also endorse the view taken by the High Court that consistent with the principle of fair play, the Selection Committee ought to have recorded reasons while giving a lesser grading to the 1st respondent. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences Vs. Dr. K. Kalyana Raman & Ors. [ AIR 1992 SC 1806 ]. Far from supporting the view taken by the High Court, the said decision laid down the proposition that the function of the Selection Committee being administrative in nature, it is under no obligation to record the reasons for its decision when there is no rule or regulation obligating the Selection Committee to record the reasons. This Court then observed: (SCC p.485, para 7). "Even the principles of natural justice do not require an administrative authority or a Selection Committee or an Examiner to record reasons for the selection or non selection of the person in the absence of statutory requirement. This principle has been stated by this Court in R.S. Das Vs. Union of India [1986 (Suppl.) SCC 617] at Page 633. "In the next paragraph, the learned Judges indicated as to what is expected of the Selection Committee, in the following words: "we may state at the outset that giving of reasons for decision is different from, and in principle distinct from the requirements of procedural fairness. The procedural fairness is the main requirement in the administrative action. The 'fairness' or 'fair procedure' in the administration action ought to be observed. The Selection Committee cannot be an exception to this principle. It must take a decision reasonably without being guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. But there is nothing on record to suggest that the Selection Committee did anything to the contrary." That being the legal position, the Court should not have faulted the so called down gradation of the 1st respondent for one of the years. Legally speaking, the term 'down gradation' is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as '"Outstanding"', '"Very Good"', 'good' and 'unfit' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. Legally speaking, the term 'down gradation' is an inappropriate expression. The power to classify as '"Outstanding"', '"Very Good"', 'good' and 'unfit' is vested with the Selection Committee. That is a function incidental to the selection process. The classification given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs is not binding on the Committee. No doubt, the Committee is by and large guided by the classification adopted by the State Government but, for good reasons, the Selection Committee can evolve its own classification which may be at variance with the gradation given in the ACRs. That is what has been done in the instant case in respect of the year 1993-94. Such classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons need be recorded, though it is desirable that in a case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, it would be desirable to record reasons. But having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision". 16. It is quite apparent from the bare reading of aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that Selection Committee while evolving its own classification may upgrade/downgrade the ACRs given by the State Government authorities in the ACRs of a particular officer. It has been further held in the aforesaid judgment that classification is within the prerogative of the Selection Committee and no reasons needs to be recorded. However, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is desirable that in case of gradation at variance with that of the State Government, DPC for Selection Committee may record reasons. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee under Regulation 5(4), it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for classifying an officer at variance with the State Government's decision. If the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court is read juxtaposing provisions contained in Chapter-16 (promotions and Selection Grade), especially clause 16.25, (Principles for promotion to selection posts), there was no occasion, if any, for the DPC to assign reason while downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner for a relevant year while considering him for promotion to the higher post and as such, no interference, if any, is called for on that count. 17. Mr. B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the minutes of meeting of DPC held on 30.9.2008, contended that since no reason much less substantial came to be recorded by the DPC while downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner, reasons recorded by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh while passing impugned order dated 20.9.2012 for rejecting the case of the petitioner cannot be read in support of decision of DPC downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner from "Outstanding" to "Very Good". There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in most celebrated case Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) that a statutory functionary makes an order passed on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned in the shape of affidavits of otherwise. However, aforesaid proposition of law cannot be pressed into the service by the petitioner for the reasons that the decision of DPC downgrading the ACRs of the petitioner from "Outstanding" to "Very Good" has merged into the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh in purported compliance of judgment dated 21.5.2012 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 8138 of 2012-J, whereby Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of all the issues, which have been raised in the present petition reserved liberty to the petitioner to file representation and directed the respondents to decide the same in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that prior to filing of the petition at hand petitioner by way of CWP No. 8138 of 2012-J had already laid challenge to the minutes of meeting of DPC held on 30.9.2008, whereby entries in the ACRs of the petitioner were ordered to be downgraded from "Outstanding" to "Very Good". Since petitioner had already laid challenge to minutes of meeting of DPC held on 30.9.2008, whereby his ACRs were downgraded from "Outstanding" to "Very Good" and in that petition, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having taken note of the fact that earlier representation having been filed by the petitioner has been decided by assigning no reasons, proceeded to remand the case back for deciding afresh, it cannot be said that competent authority while passing order afresh have given new reasons while rejecting the case which cannot be read in continuation of findings recorded by the DPC in its meeting held on 30.9.2008. Otherwise also, this Court having carefully perused the Minutes of Meeting held on 30.9.2008 finds that DPC after having carefully perused the Annual Confidential Repots for the last five years i.e. from 2002-03 to 2006-07 assessed all the candidates including the petitioner in order of merit and as such, it cannot be said that DPC proceeded to downgrade the entry of "Outstanding" to "Very Good" without having assessed the record. Since Clause 16.25 of Chapter 16 of Hand Book on Personnel Matters does not make it incumbent upon DPC to assign reasons before upgrading/downgrading the ACRs of a person to be considered for promotion to the higher post, no fault, if any, otherwise can be found in the decision of DPC held on 30.9.2008. Since petitioner in his earlier petition had laid challenge to the Minutes of Meeting held on 30.9.2008 and in that case had acceded to the directions issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to respondent to consider representation afresh, order of DPC held on 30.9.2008 can be safely held to be merged with the order dated 20.9.2012. Since petitioner in his earlier petition had laid challenge to the Minutes of Meeting held on 30.9.2008 and in that case had acceded to the directions issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to respondent to consider representation afresh, order of DPC held on 30.9.2008 can be safely held to be merged with the order dated 20.9.2012. Careful perusal of order dated 20.9.2012 clearly suggests that Reporting Officer in the ACRs of each year have graded the petitioner differently against 16 column and in most of columns he has been assessed to "Very Good", but suddenly Reviewing Officer without assigning reasons proceeded to grant the petitioner as "outstanding" "which is otherwise not permissible under Clause 19.8.5 of Chapter 19 of the Handbook on Personnel Matters Vol-II. 18. By now it is well settled that scope of judicial review is very limited as far as gradation of ACRs by DPC is concerned. Hon'ble Apex Court in Anil Katiyar versus Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 280 , has held that the correctness of the grading given in the ACRs was not subject to judicial review. It would be profitable to take note of para-4 of the aforesaid judgment herein below:- "4. Having regard to the limited scope of judicial review of the merits of a selection made for appointment to a service or a civil post, the Tribunal has rightly proceeded on the basis that it is not expected to play the role of an appellate authority or an umpire in the acts and proceedings of the DPC and that it would not sit in judgment over the selection made by the DPC unless the selection is assailed as being vitiated by male fides or on the ground of it being arbitrary. It is not the case of the appellant that the selection by the DPC was vitiated by mala fides." 19. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the order dated 20.9.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 and the same is upheld, in result whereof, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any.