9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4 was thus senior to the appellant. The post of Deputy Government Advocate is a selection post on which appointment is made from amongst Asst. Government Advocates. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) headed by a member of the Union Public Service Commission was constituted for making the selection. The appellant as well as respondent No. 4 were graded as "very good" by the DPC and since respondent No. 4 was senior to the appellant he was selected and on the basis of the said selection he has been appointed as Deputy Government Advocate. The appellant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by filing O.A. No. 2538 of 1994 which has been dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant had been graded as "very good". 3. Shri Gopal Subramanium, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the Tribunal was in error in observing that one "outstanding" grading does not flow from various parameters given and the reports entered and in doing so the Tribunal has assumed the role of an appellate authority over the Reporting Officer and the Re-viewing officer, a course which, according to the Tribunal itself, could not be adopted by it. The submission is that the grading has to be made by the Reporting Officer and the Reviewing Officer and since both have agreed in grading the appellant as "outstanding" in the ACRs for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92, it was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fidential procedure which is followed by the Union Public Service Commission, we are unable to hold that the decision of the DPC in grading the appellant as "very good" instead of "outstanding" can be said to be arbitrary. No ground is, therefore, made out for interference with the selection of respondent No. 4 by the DPC on the basis of which he has been appointed as Deputy Government Advocate. But, at the same time, it must be held that the Tribunal was in error in going into the question whether the appellant had been rightly graded as "outstanding" in the ACRs for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. The observations of the Tribunal that out of the two "outstanding" gradings given to the appellant one & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
