Decided on April 21,2007

COL V M MATHUR Appellant
Union Of India And Anr Respondents


- (1.) Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, we recall our order dated 13th March, 2007 imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon Lt. Col. B. Sridhar for his failure to comply with the Court order. WP(C)23692/2005 The petitioner is working as a Colonel in the Army Medical Corps. He was considered for promotion to the next higher rank of Brigadier by Selection Board No. 2 on 9th December, 2002 but not recommended for promotion. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a statutory representation dated 12th April, 2003 to the Central Government inter alia complaining that the ACR for the year 2001 was vitiated on account of the same having been initiated by an officer holding an equal rank as that of the petitioner and who was a competitor for promotion to the next higher rank. The Central Government granted to the petitioner partial redress in the said representation inasmuch as the grading of 7 marks given by the DGMS for the year 1999 was expunged. Dissatisfied with the partial redressal, the petitioner made a second statutory complaint dated 11th February, 2004 once again agitating the issue regarding the competence of Col. P.L. Gupta to initiate a report on him. That representation was examined by the Central Government but turned down in terms of a communication dated 19th August, 2005. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the correctness of the said communication and also for a mandamus commanding the respondents to initiate a fresh ACR for the year 2001 or to reconsider his case for promotion to the next higher rank after excluding the said ACR.
(2.) The respondents have appeared through Sh. Sanjay Katyal and filed a counter affidavit in which they have inter alia stated that even if the evaluation made by Initiating Officer for the year 2001 and that by the FTO are both excluded from consideration on the ground that Col. P.L. Gupta who initiated the said reports was not competent to do so, the petitioner would remain below the cut off for Promotion Board held in December, 2002. According to the respondents, after excluding IO s and FTO s assessment for the year 2001, the over all average of the petitioner for 3 years, namely, 1999, 2000 and 2001 works out to 8.19 as against the cut off of 8.23 at which the last candidate was selected for promotion in December, 2002.
(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The profile of the petitioner, as considered by the Promotion Board held on 9th December, 2002 based on the assessments made by the IOs, ROs, SROs as also the FTOs, STOs and HTOs, may be reproduced in a tabular form as under: ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACR IO RO SRO DGMS AVG FTO STO HTO AVG Final Avg. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2001 8.30 8.00 8 8.10 8.10 8.10 8 8.06 8.08 2000 8.30 8.10 8 8 8.10 8.60 8.20 8.40 8.25 1999 8.50 - 7 7.75 8.20 - 8 8.10 7.92 ------------------------------------------------------------------ OVERALL AVG. 8.08 CUT OFF 8.23 ------------------------------------------------------------------;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.