CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 03 CAT CK 0168

Harkesh Mali vs Government Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 31 March 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 477 Of 2021, Miscellaneous Application No. 591 Of 2021

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 365 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The applicant is working as Trained Graduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. His ACR for the year 2008-09 was rated as 'Average'. Feeling aggrieved by that, he made a representation to the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Director (Education). Through an order dated 12.12.2017, the Deputy Director informed the applicant that he called for remarks from the Reporting Officer (RO), and on examination of the remarks and the relevant record, he did not feel it necessary to expunge or upgrade the ACR. This OA is filed, challenging the order dated 12.12.2017.

2.

The applicant contends that his ACR was consistently of very high order, and in the instant case, he was not put on notice, much less he was informed of any lapse on his part. He contends that the gradation by the RO was wrong, and instead of correcting it, the competent authority has upheld it.

3.

We heard Mr. Satish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, at the stage of admission.

4.

The applicant is under impression that his ACR for the year 2008-09 was downgraded. The fact of the matter is that the RO himself rated it as 'Average'. Reason stated therefor is that the applicant did not complete the evaluation of answer scripts of Class-VIII 'C', and that in turn, caused delay in declaration of the results. On a representation made by the applicant, herein, the competent authority called for remarks of the RO as well as the record. He passed a reasoned order on 12.12.2017, taking the view that he does not find any basis to alter the gradation.

5.

The occasion for this Tribunal to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority would arise, if only it is bereft of any reasons or the remarks from the concerned authority, were not called for. In the instant case, the competent authority called for remarks and he has undertaken the discussion about the matter.

6.

We do not find any defect or illegality in the impugned order. The OA is, accordingly, dismissed.

7.

MA No.591/2021 also stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.