Amarjeet Singh vs Union Of India Through And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant retired from the service of Central Secretariat Service (for short, CSS) as Deputy Secretary on 31.07.2016. The DPC for promotion to the post of Director in CSS was held on 13.06.2016. The case of the applicant was considered but he was not cleared by the DPC. The applicant made representation on 05.10.2016 with a prayer to convene review DPC to consider his case. In an elaborate manner, it is stated that some of the APARs pertaining to him, were not properly dealt with, and if the correct and legal position as regards the APARs was to be taken into account, he was entitled to be considered and promoted. This representation was followed by another, dated 19.07.2017 almost on the same lines. Through an order dated 28.12.2017, the respondents informed the applicant that his request cannot be acceded to, since certain proceedings initiated by him before this Tribunal are pending. The said communication is challenged in this OA.

We heard Shri H. D. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Subhash Gosain, learned counsel for the respondents, at the admission stage itself, at length.

The case of the applicant did come up for consideration before the DPC which met on 13.06.2016. However, some of his APARs do not appear to be, up to the mark. He was not declared fit for promotion, and shortly thereafter he retired from service.

Whenever an employee is denied promotion by the DPC on the basis of ratings of the APARs, the remedies open to him are either to pursue the matter with the competent authority for upgradation of the APARs or to approach a Court of Law, if the facts permit of that. The applicant did not submit any representation to the competent authority as regards APARs. On the other hand, his representation indicates that he was himself proclaiming the correctness or otherwise of the procedure adopted by the department. Having done that, he approached the Tribunal by filing OAs, which are exclusively for the purpose of upgradation of the APARs.

The occasion for convening a review DPC would arise, if only, the ratings of the APARs of an employee disabled him from being declared as fit by the DPC, and at a later point of time, they have been upgraded by the concerned authorities or the Court. If the corrected or upgraded APARs are such that they would have made difference with the DPC, the review DPC deserves to be convened, so that the changed scenario of the employee is taken into account.

In the instant case, the applicant did not even approach the competent authority with a representation and accordingly no relief emerged from that source. He has instituted OA No.1124/2014 and OA No.176/2016 in relation thereto, and they are yet to assume finality. This very situation is referred to in the impugned communication, and the applicant cannot be said to have suffered any detriment.

We, therefore, dismiss the OA, leaving it open to the applicant to pursue the remedies depending on the outcome of the pending OAs. There shall be no order as to costs.