4.1 It is further submitted that for the year under consideration i.e. for 20142015, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017, the petitioner was graded 'Good' in his ACR, which is not supposed to be “Adverse remark”, therefore, it was not communicated to the petitioner. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Jal Nigam and others v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others 2 . It is further submitted that aforesaid standardized Norms (Annexure R-4) have been prepared & adopted by Coal India Limited in the year 2012 wherein marks for grading of ACR i.e. 'Outstanding', 'Very Good', 'Good' & 'Average' were also distributed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for SECL that of course, if person not having “Outstanding” or “Very Good” remark in the ACR, then the petitioner would have been found eligible for getting promotion, but since, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion as his total marks was below than the private respondents, who were granted higher marks in view of their grading in ACR, therefore, they obtained higher marks in total, than the petitioner, as such, they were promoted and the petitioner was not given promotion on the post of Chief X-ray Technician (Radiographer) T & S Grade “A1”. It is further submitted that promotion avenue of the petitioner can be considered only on the basis of prevailing circumstances, while conducting DPC for promotion, other circumstances i.e. not informing his grading in ACRs or upgradation of his grading in ACR etc. cannot be considered in the instant petition, as this petition has not been filed for upgradation of ACRs of petitioner or any other alike grievance, rather this petition has been preferred by the petitioner for consideration of his promotion, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as has been sought for by him in the instant petition.
