AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant initially joined the Indian Air Force (IAF). After retiring from it, he joined as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in the Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. In the ACR of the applicant for the year 2017-18, the Reporting Authority, i.e. Head of the School (HOS), rated him as 'Average'. The Reviewing Authority i.e. Deputy Director of Education, disagreed with the assessment made by the HOS and rated the applicant as 'Good'.
The applicant filed O.A. No. 3090/2019 feeling aggrieved by the assessment in the ACR for the year 2017-18. The O.A. was disposed of by this Tribunal on 23.10.2019, leaving it open to the applicant to make a representation to the competent authority, i.e. Director of Education, the 2nd respondent herein.
Through an order dated 26.02.2020, the 2nd respondent agreed with the HOS, observing that the remarks made by the Reporting Authority as well as Reviewing Authority will remain unchanged. This O.A. is filed challenging the said order.
The applicant contends that the observation made by the Reporting Officer, i.e. the 2nd respondent, in the ACR for the year 2017-18 is without any basis, and the one made by the Reviewing Officer, needs to be treated as final and valid.
We heard Mr. Ranjit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondents.
In a way, the applicant has initiated unnecessary and uncalled for legal battle. In the normal course, the preparation of the ACR involves by three officers, i.e. Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting. In certain cases, the views expressed by the Reviewing Authority are treated as final. The record does not disclose that there is any separate Accepting Authority for the preparation of the ACRs of the Teachers in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The view expressed by the Reviewing Authority is treated as final.
In the case of the applicant, the HOS made several remarks which are almost a sad reflection as to the performance of the applicant and accordingly rated him as 'Average'. Fortunately for the applicant, the Reviewing Authority did not agree with that and graded him as 'Good'. It is not understood as to what grievance the applicant can have, once the rating given by the superior authority in his favour. The Competent Authority has also maintained the same grading. As of now, the one given by the Reviewing Authority needs to be taken into account.
Therefore, we do not find any merit in the O.A. and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.