Partly allowed

K.Hanumanthu, v. Chief Post Master General

Telangana HC7 Oct 2014WP/6917/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Writ Petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal of a promotion claim due to an 'Average' grading. The Court held that 'Average' does not disqualify an official if the D.P.C. finds them fit, setting aside the impugned order and directing a case review.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Tribunal set aside. Respondent No.1 directed to review the petitioner's case keeping in mind the circular letters and take appropriate decision.

K.Hanumanthu, Vs Chief Post Master General — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.6917 OF 2003

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order, dated 27.12.2002, in R.A.No.15 of 2002 in O.A.No.1564 of 2000, and order, dated 7.3.2002, in O.A.No.1564 of 2000, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶6

2. Petitioner herein/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to call for the records pertaining to Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, “D.P.C.”) proceedings for his promotion to BCR cadre with effect from 1.7.1998 and peruse the same; to set aside Memo, dated 10.10.2000, of respondent No.1 rejecting his claim for promotion to BCR cadre in spite of his eligibility by declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary, and to direct the respondents to promote him to the BCR Cadre with effect from 1.7.1998 from the date he became due on par with his junior taking into consideration the guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in respect of promotions especially departmental promotions with all consequential benefits.

¶7

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application on 7.3.2002 on the ground that the grading given in the service record of the applicant was “average” and therefore, he was not entitled for promotion under BCR Scheme. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed Review Application No.15 of 2002 before the Tribunal and the same was also dismissed on 27.12.2002. Challenging these orders, the applicant filed the

¶8

present Writ Petition.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant contended that though the petitioner was entitled for promotion to BCR cadre with effect from 1.7.1998 as well as on 1.7.1999, his case was passed over on the ground that the entry of “average” grading has been recorded in his service record; that the circular letters, dated 9.9.1997 and 21.3.1995, are very clear that “average” grading need not disqualify an official from promotion under the BCR Scheme if he was otherwise found fit by the D.P.C. and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned orders and allow the writ petition.

¶10

5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents contended that the language employed in the aforementioned two circular letters is very clear that discretion was given to the authorities either to give promotion or not; that if the petitioner was found fit by the D.P.C., he could be given promotion and considering his average performance, his promotion to the BCR cadre was denied and therefore, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court and hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶11

6. The facts are not in dispute. Paragraph No.6.1.4 of the circular, dated 21.3.1995, issued by the Member (Personnel), Department of Posts, New Delhi reads as follows:

¶12

“Government also desires to clear the misconception “Average” performance. While “Average” may not be taken as adverse remark in respect of an officer, at the same time, it cannot be regarded as complimentary to the officer, as “Average” performance should be regarded as routine and undistinguished. It is only performance that is above average and performance that is really note-worthy which should entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in the matter of promotion.”

¶13

From the above circular instructions, it is clear that the grading “Average” may not be taken as an adverse remark in respect of an officer, but at the same time, it cannot be taken as a compliment to the

¶14

officer. The said circular was further clarified by letter, dated 9.9.1997, basing on the representations made by the Staff Unions wherein it is held at paragraph Nos.2 and 3 as under:

¶15

“2. On receipt of representations from the staff unions, the whole matter has been examined once again in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training. They have opined that as the promotion under BCR Scheme falls under non-selection method, these are to be regulated as per the provisions made in para 7 read with para 6.1.4 of the O.M. dated 10^th April, 1989 relating to DPC procedure. It is for the DPC to take a final view on the suitability of the officer for promotion keeping in view these instructions. In the light of aforesaid clarification of the Department of personnel & Training, the ‘Average’ grading need not disqualify an official from promotion under the BCR scheme if he has been otherwise found fit by the DPC.

¶16

3. The aforesaid instructions may please be followed for considering future promotions under the BCR Scheme. The DPCs held after the issue of instructions dated 21.3.1995 may also be reviewed, if considered necessary.”

¶17

The above letter would clearly go to show that “average” grading need not disqualify an official if he has been otherwise found to be fit by the D.P.C. Whether an employee is otherwise found fit or not has to be decided by D.P.C. without reference to the entry like “average” in the annual confidential reports. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and are accordingly, set aside and respondent No.1 is directed to review the case of the petitioner keeping in mind the aforementioned two circular letters and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶18

7. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶20

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

Date: 07.10.2014

¶22

AMD

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶24

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.6917 OF 2003

¶26

DATE: 07.10.2014

¶27

AMD

K.Hanumanthu, v. Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Hanumanthu, v. Chief Post Master General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.S.Lakshmidevi, Vs Sapthagiri Grameena Bank

The Commissioner, Vs Jampana Satyanarayana Raju

Mallarapu Soma Sekhar, Vs State Bank of India

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. K. Surya Kalavathi

The State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Panthangi Narasimha

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Sri.Y.Vishnu Murty