the year 2010. In respect of the second chance in the year 2011, the candidature of the applicant was considered again, but here also, no additional material in respect of the work report was presented by the applicant, to be considered, giving a higher level of appreciation. As a matter of fact, in respect of the 1st process of the year 2010, the petitioner could score only 80 marks (out of the bench mark of 85 fixed for assessment); where as in the second chance, he had only 70 marks (as against the bench mark fixed as 80). In the said circumstances, the petitioner was noted as 'not fit for promotion' and as such, there was no scope for any interference. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal held that the consideration was made by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant Rules and there was no challenge against any of the Rules or stipulations in this regard. Crossing of the 'first hurdle' by obtaining the requisite extent of marks for the 'ACR' by itself was not enough and the petitioner had to cross the 'second hurdle' as well, with regard to the 'work report'. Securing the minimum marks prescribed as bench mark however was not satisfied by the petitioner/applicant. It was also noted by the Tribunal that the exercise was conducted by the Committee constituted in this regard, which consisted of experts in the field and that absolutely no
