AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman:
By way of the present OA, the applicant is praying for the following reliefs:
“8.1.to direct the respondents to allow the applicant to participate in selection for grant of next higher grade of DGM in grade of Rs. 70,000/- -Rs. 2,00,000/- (IDA) (1st DPC-2022) initiated vide office order No. PT/2943/2022 dated 24.1.22 and if applicant scored qualifying marks in written exam. (schedule on 17.2.2022) then applicant be empanelled, in order of seniority for consideration for grant of next higher grade of DGM in grade of Rs. 70,000/- - Rs. 2,00,000/- (IDA) (1st DPC-2022) and further be subjected to interview and if found fit then to grant next higher grade of DGM with all consequential benefit including seniority & promotion and pay & allowance.”
The respondents issued an office order dated 24.01.2022 on the subject, “Selection for grant of next higher grade of DGM in grade of Rs. 70000-Rs. 200000 IDA”. The said order stipulates the conditions and criteria for appearing in selection for that grade, which reads as under:
“all promotion to the next working level will be granted as per seniority cum suitability only through a process of positive act of selection based on availability of vacancies. It will comprise of APAR grading, a written exam and interview officers, maximum upto 3 times of number of vacancies, as per seniority will be called for the selection process. The minimum qualifying APAR points in preceding 4 years for being considered for DGM, level is 36 points.”
The written examination for grant of next higher grade of DGM has been scheduled on 17.02.2022. The applicant made a representation dated 25.01.2022 with a request to upgrade his APAR for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19 by considering his representations dated 07.12.2021 and 18.01.2022. It is submitted that the applicant could not get the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 36 points in preceding four APARs due to the below benchmark grading for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19.
Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that though the applicant, in pursuance of the Tribunal‟s order dated 15.11.2021 in OA No. 2495/2021, has submitted a representation for upgradation of his grading from „good‟ to „very good‟ for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, the respondents did not take any decision on the same. As a result, he is not being permitted to appear in the selection test for grant of next higher grade of DGM. He submitted that grave prejudice would be caused to the applicant if he is not allowed to participate in the written examination for the said selection which is scheduled to be held on 17.02.2022.
We heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, at the stage of admission.
It is noted that the minimum qualifying APAR points in preceding 4 years for being considered for DGM level is 36 points, whereas the applicant is having less than 36 points due to grading „Good‟ for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. The applicant had obtained the following APAR points:-
| S.No. | Year | Grading | Equivalent to points |
| 1. | 2017-18 | Good | 6 |
| 2. | 2018-19 | Good | 6 |
| 3. | 2019-20 | Outstanding | 10 |
| 4. | 2020-21 | Outstanding | 10 |
| Total | 32 |
From the above table, it is clear that the applicant had only got 32 points and thus, became ineligible to be considered for DGM level.
The applicant cannot be considered for consideration of next higher grade of DGM in Grade of Rs.70,000-Rs.2,00,000/-until and unless his APAR for the period of 2017-18 and 2018-19 are upgraded. It is a fact that the representations submitted by the applicant are pending with the respondents and they are the appropriate authority to decide as to whether the below benchmark APARs are to be upgraded or not. The Tribunal cannot step into the shoes of the administrative authorities for the purpose of upgrading the APARs of the applicant for the relevant period. Even, on perusal of the record, it is found that the applicant has made a comprehensive representation as recently as on 07.12.2021 and only two months passed since the submission of the same. The OA is thus premature, as the respondents certainly need a reasonable time to decide the representation of the applicant. Without waiting for the outcome of his aforesaid representations, the applicant has rushed to this Tribunal. The OA is, therefore, not maintainable, and deserves to be dismissed as such.
In view of the above, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.