High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 24..3..2008Coram:The Honourable Mr.Justice P.K. MISRAandThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.CHANDRUW. P. No. 12834 of 2002P. Murugan... Petitioner -vs-1.Government of IndiaRep. by the Assistant Director GeneralDepartment of TelecommunicationMinistry of CommunicationNew Delhi2.The Chief General Manager B S N L (Telecommunications)Anna SalaiTamil Nadu CircleChennai-600002.3.The PrincipalRegional Telecom Training CentreKaimanam,TrivandrumKerala4.The RegistrarCentral Administrative TribunalHigh Court Camputs,Chennai – 104... RespondentsPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying toissue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned orderpassed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 275 of 2001 dated 04.01.2002 andOrder No. 15/78/99/STG-II dated 01.02.2001 by the first respondent anddirect the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the listof selected candidates in TES Group – B LDCE held in 1988 with allconsequential benefits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioner : M/s P.V.S. Giridhar AssociatesFor Respondents : Mr. K. Kannan, SCGSCORDERK. CHANDRU, J.Heard the arguments of Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counselappearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.Kannan, learned Senior CentralGovernment Standing Counsel representing the respondents and haveperused the records.2.The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of the CentralAdministrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] made in O.A. No. 275 of2001 dated 04.01.2002, has filed the present writ petition. 3.The petitioner was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Telecomat Nagercoil. While he was working as a Junior Telecom Officer, heappeared in the examination for being promoted in the TelecomEngineering Services [for short, 'TES'] Group – B Post held duringNovember 1988 under the 1/3rd quota. He became successful in the writtenexamination. It was his claim that the notings in his AnnualConfidential Rolls (ACR] was satisfactory. But, however, when theresults for the year 1988 was published, he found to his dismay, that hewas not selected whereas 118 candidates were promoted to the TES Group BPost. 4.The petitioner found that some of the unsuccessful candidatesmoved the Bangalore Bench of the CAT and successfully got their OriginalApplication allowed. On coming to know of the same, he sent arepresentation dated 09.8.2000 requesting the respondents also todeclare him successful. He also stated that while he obtained 154marks out of 250 in the written examination, he found that candidateswith lesser marks have been selected. He also alleged that he was notselected because of mala fide reasons as he had filed an O.A. before theErnakulam Bench of CAT against the then superior regarding allotmentquarters and he was also successful in his original examination. 5. Aggrieved by the select list dated 01.02.2001, he approachedthe CAT with the Original Application being O.A. No. 275 of 2001 seekingfor a direction to issue a fresh order listing the petitioner's name inthe relevant position according to the marks obtained by the successfulcandidates in the TES Examination 'B' Group held during the year 1988. 6.A reply affidavit was filed by the respondents and it wascontended that the petitioner had not obtained 50% in Paper- IV of theExamination and, therefore, his name was not included. With regard to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the three names referred to as having secured lesser marks than thepetitioner, it was stated that those candidates had secured more marksthan the petitioner in the consolidated marking and, therefore, theywere selected. It was also stated that the Department of Telecom hadissued instructions that the candidates must secure minimum marks in thethree written papers as well as in the evaluation marks of the ACR,which was considered as the IVth paper. 7.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner contended that theprocedure adopted by the respondents was erroneous and so long as he hadgot more than 50% marks in the written examination and there being noadverse remarks against the him in the ACR, he should have beenselected. However, it was pointed out before the Tribunal that in therevised circular dated 02.5.1986, it was made clear that the minimumpass mark in the examination was 50% in each paper for generalcandidates. It is stated that in respect of the fourth paper, thepetitioner had obtained only 31 marks out of 75. Therefore, since hedid not secure the minimum mark required in the paper IV, he was notselected. 8.With reference to allegation of mala fide, the same was deniedand it was indicated that his filing O.A. before the Ernakulam Bench hadnever weighed with the respondents and selection was based upon themarks obtained in the written examination as well as evaluation by theDPC. On the dismissal of the O.A. by an order dated 04.01.2002, thepresent writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.9.Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar, learned counsel once again advanced thevery same arguments before this Court and stated that the petitioner'sACR was clean and when he had not been communicated with any adverseremarks, it was to be stated that the authorities will have to take noteof only the marks obtained in the written examination. If there wasanything adverse, the same should have been communicated to him earlierand it was not open to the respondents to rely upon any un-communicatedadverse remark. 10.In this context, the learned counsel relied upon the judgmentof the Supreme Court in Brig Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. and others[2001 (9) SCC 398]. We do not know as to how this order of the SupremeCourt is of any assistance to the petitioner. In that case, theSupreme Court held on the facts of that case that the adverse entriesnoted in the ACR before the check period could not have been taken noteof and with reference to the adverse entry for the year 1993-94, thesame was subsequently deleted. Therefore, in that view of the matter,the petitioner before the Supreme Court got a direction for a freshconsideration of his promotion. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11.The original file was also circulated and we have perusedthem. We do not find the allegation made by the petitioner regardingmala fide or not substantiated.12.In the present case, it is not the stand of the respondentsthat there were any adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner.What has been done is an overall evaluation of the ACR by the DPC whichhad assigned marks in respect of each candidate which exercise wascalled as Paper IV. There is no attack on this methodology adopted bythe respondents. Further, it has also been repeatedly held that theDPC can evaluate the overall assessment of each candidate on the basisof the ACR notings which ipso facto does not mean that the DPC had takennote of any uncommunicated adverse entries.13.In the light of the same, we do not think that this is a fitcase where this Court can exercise power under Article 226 of theConstitution of India to interfere with the factual findings rendered bythe CAT and to arrive at a different conclusion so as to replace theevaluation done by the DPC. In the absence of any mala fideattributed to the DPC with concrete proof or against the procedureadopted by the respondents, we do not feel it proper to interdict thejudgment of the CAT. The writ petition is devoid of merits andaccordingly, stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as tocosts. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargriTo1.The Assistant Director GeneralGovernment of IndiaDepartment of TelecommunicationMinistry of CommunicationNew Delhi2.The Chief General Manager B S N L (Telecommunications)Anna Salai,Tamil Nadu CircleChennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The PrincipalRegional Telecom Training CentreKaimanam,TrivandrumKerala4.The RegistrarCentral Administrative TribunalChennai – 1041 cc To Mr.K.Kannan, SCGSC, SR.16343. W. P. No. 12834 of 2002 SJI(CO)RVL 28.03.2008