Union of India. Rep. By vs The Registrar

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20 June, 2014 in O.A.No.623 of 2012 on the file of the Madras Bench of the Central

Administrative Tribunal (for short ""Tribunal""), directing the petitioner to place the case of the second respondent before the Review Departmental

Promotion Committee (DPC) and consider the question of placing him in Selection Grade with effect from 1 January, 2009 and for other incidental

reliefs.

We have heard the learned counsel for the Railways. We have also heard the learned counsel for the second respondent.

The second respondent was appointed by the Railways on 28 April 1997. He was promoted to the post of Senior Scale and then further

promoted to Junior Administrative Scale with effect from 11 October, 2005. He was found by the Railway Board DPC unfit for placement in

Selection Grade. The non-selection was on account of his grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR). Subsequently, the second

respondent submitted representation before the competent authority to revise the benchmark. Accordingly, he was upgraded as ''Very Good'' and

fresh Assessment was given as ''Fit''. The second respondent, therefore made a request to the Railways to conduct Review DPC and place him in

Selection Grade with effect from 1 January 2009. His request was rejected. The said order was challenged before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that benchmark was upgraded as '' Very Good'' and Assessment as ""Fit"" by the competent Authority. The Tribunal,

therefore, directed the petitioner to place the case of the second respondent before the Review DPC.

The issue raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India

and others [(2008) 8 SCC 725].

There is no dispute that there was revision of the grade as well as assessment of the second respondent by the competent authority. The second

respondent, was therefore, perfectly correct in his contention that the review DPC ought to have considered his case for Selection Grade taking

into account the Selection Grade given to the other officers of his batch. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal was correct in directing the

petitioner to consider the case of the second respondent.

In the up shot, we dismiss the writ petition. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.