The court rejected the petitioner's claim to ignore uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports from 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Holding that officers holding the requisite posts at the time of review were competent to decide the representation, the writ petition was dismissed.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
% Date of Decision: September 5, 2011
VED M. RAO
....Petitioner Through Mr.Venkatraman, Advocate.
VERSUS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING & OTHERS …..Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% SANJIV KHANNA, J.
We have heard Mr. K. Venkatraman, learned counsel for the
petitioner at length. It is submitted that the Annual Confidential Report
(ACR) of the petitioner for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 should have
been ignored as the gradings were not communicated to her in spite of the
fact that the bench mark for the next promotion was „very good‟. It is
submitted that retirement of the petitioner is of no consequence. Lastly, it
is stated that the exercise undertaken by the respondents in reviewing the
ACRs for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is an eyewash as the reporting
as well as the reviewing officer have retired and were not available.
WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 1 of 4
WP(C) 6463/2011
Page 2 of 4
ACRs for the period 1998-99-P-III (Assessment of reporting officer).
Nature and quality of work:- The primary assignment of Ms Ved M Rai was planning & production of plays/serials in view of her professional qualifications & experience. But she under toproduction of some music programme only, grading „Good‟. P-V Remarks of the Reviewing Officer- „A Good Officer‟.
ACR for the period 1999-2000 0 Remarks of reporting officer Grading- „Good‟�. Remarks of the Reviewing officer “The output, quantum or work & qualities of work may be graded as „Good‟ only”.
of plays/serials, which were assigned to the petitioner during the said period. They have referred to her professional qualifications and
WP(C) 6463/2011 Page 3 of 4
experience. Accordingly, keeping in view the output, quantum of work
and quality of work, she was graded „good‟ in her ACRs for the relevant years and the gradings were not upgraded.
writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as
to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 NA
WP(C) 6463/2011
4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to have uncommunicated Annual Confidential Report gradings ignored for promotion benefits.
Whether the representation for upgradation of ACRs should have been decided by officers who have since retired.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & OthersReferred¶2
(2008) 8 SCC 725 · Who else cites this
J.S. Garg Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶2
J.S. Garg Vs. Union of India 2002 (65) DRJ 607 (FB)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ved M. Rao
Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
Sanjiv Khanna
Chief Justice
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
