Chitra Suresh vs Union Of India

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant joined the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) Group 'B' in the year 1985. Thereafter, she was promoted as Grade-I of IFS (B) in February, 2005 and got the senior scale in the IFS, in June, 2011. She got Junior Administrative Grade in January, 2012. She became eligible to be considered for promotion to Grade-IV of IFS in the year 2016. The DPC considered the case of the applicant and other eligible persons. However, the name of the applicant was not recommended by the DPC. She made repeated representations and ultimately filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to reconsider her case for promotion to Grade-IV of IFS w.e.f. 01.01.2016, i.e. the date on which her juniors were promoted. She also prayed for a direction to grant all consequential benefit in this behalf.

The applicant contends that her APARs for the relevant years were rated as "very good", at least for the two years, and though that was sufficient for her to be treated as fit for promotion, the DPC did not recommend her case. She contends that the respondents deviated from the prescribed procedure and that, in turn, resulted in denial of promotion to her.

Respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. They did not dispute the progression of the applicant in her career up to the JAG level. It is stated that the DPC, which met in the year 2016 for consideration of the candidates for promotion to Grade-IV, did not find her 'fit' and, accordingly, she was not promoted.

The applicant filed a rejoinder. She enclosed the OM of the year 1989, according to which the assessment as "very good" in 2 of the 5 years will be sufficient for a candidate to be extended the benefit of NFSG.

Today, we heard Mr. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Satish Kumar and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The only issue in this OA is about the denial of promotion in Grade-IV of IFS to the applicant. Here itself, we mention that the applicant is promoted to that grade in the year January, 2021.

It is not in dispute that the promotion to Grade-IV is based on the recommendations of the DPC. The bench mark is said to have been stipulated as 'very good', for the relevant 5 years. It is not in dispute that it was only for 2, out of the relevant 5 years, that the APARs of the applicant were rated as 'very good'. For one year, it was rated as 'good' and for other two years, there was no assessment. From this it is evident that the applicant was below the bench mark.

Even if the APARs of the applicant were 'very good' for all the 5 years, the DPC has its own discretion and parameters, for declaring a candidate as 'fit' or 'unfit'. The applicant did not attribute any mala fide to the members of the DPC. Howsoever meritorious a candidate may be, the promotion can occur only if it is recommended by the DPC, if it is through selection. It is fairly well settled that an employee has a right to be considered for promotion, but not the one, to be promoted, as such. The respondents did consider the case of the applicant, but on account of the fact that the DPC did not recommend her case, they could not promote her. The objectivity on the part of the respondents is evident from the fact that in the subsequent years, the applicant was promoted.

We do not find any merit in the OA and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending MA also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.