AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.L. Gokhale, CJ.
Heard Col. Ashok Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Husain, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government appearing for the respondents.
The appellant herein had filed a writ petition seeking his promotion to the post of Naib Subedar. It was his case that there was low grading of his service in the year 1997, and because of which, he did not get promotion. PrayerA of the writ petition was to set aside that low grading, and prayerB was to direct the respondents to consider him for promotion at his own original seniority.
As far as grading of the appellant during the relevant years is concerned, it is seen from the record that during the years 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, his grading was ''Above Average'', ''High Average'', ''High Average'', ''Above Average'', and then ''High Average'' respectively.
The contention was raised before the learned Single Judge that the appellant did not get his promotion because of the entry, which was made in the year 1997, and that it was an adverse entry and the same was not communicated to him. The Army Headquarter had taken a stand that the grading of �, which is ''High Average'', is not an adverse entry and, therefore, there is no question of communicating the same.
As far as considering the appellant for promotion is concerned, the respondents took a stand that the appellant was considered. They have specifically stated in their counter affidavit to the application for condonation of delay in this appeal that the appellant was first considered in his own turn against a vacancy of 1.1.1998, but was found ineligible since he did not fulfill the annual A.C.R. grading criteria. Later on, it was noted that he has crossed the permissible upper age limit for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar, applicable at that time and, therefore, he could not be promoted and was superseded for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar until the date of his retirement.
It is further stated that the appellant was given extension of service as per the decision of the Ministry of Defence by two years. Since the age of retirement was extended to 44 years, he was reconsidered for promotion to the rank of Naib Subedar against the vacancy of 1.9.1999 as per the review list, but this time also he did not fulfill the annual A.C.R. criteria. The Army Headquarter has also taken same stand in their communication.
The learned Single Judge has considered all these factors. He has noted that it is for the authorities of the armed forces to watch the services of the employee concerned to know whether he is eligible for promotion or not. They have applied relevant criteria and thereafter found him ineligible. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant suffered because of his grading of the year 1997, which was �, i.e., ''High Average''. According to him, it should have been 4/4, which is ''Above Average''. That is a matter for the authorities to assess the services of the employee concerned.
It appears that the appellant has not been promoted because of that grading, but it is not an adverse entry, which could be required to be communicated. It is a grading, and it is not any adverse remark. A grading is a rating or analysis of the service record of an employee concerned. It by itself does not constitute any adverse entry and, therefore, there is not a procedural fault on the part of the respondents in not communicating it to the appellant.
We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondents have considered the appellant for promotion and not found him eligible. This always happens when a number of people are considered, some are found eligible and some are not.
There is no error. The appeal is dismissed.
(Appeal dismissed)