Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

60
Union Public Service Commission
2. This Tribunal had made the following observation in its order dated 17.10.2008 in OA 1823/2007:
“4. We have perused the ACRs of the applicant for the relevant period, the
assessment sheet of the DPC as well as the minutes of DPC. While in the column 3 of
Part IV of the form of ACR for the year 2002-03, which is regarding “General
Assessment”, the reporting officer has recorded that “the performance of the office during
the year had been good”, the Reviewing Officer has recorded “Very Good” in column 6
of Part V of the ACR, the heading of which is ‘Grading’. However, the CR form has
been changed from the year 2003-04. The column about ‘Grading’ has now become
column 4 in Part IV of the form of ACR to be recorded by the reporting officer. Column
6 in Part V has been deleted and the reviewing officer is not recording ‘Grading’ of
officer concerned. In the year 2003-04, the reporting officer has recorded the ‘Grading’
of the officer as ‘Good’. Thus out of the five years’ ACRs, which have been considered,
the ‘Grading’ below bench mark has been recorded in only the year 2003-04. This has
not been communicated to the applicant.”
3. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Review Application are reproduced below:
“6. That as per para 4 of the Judgment/order, Hon’ble Tribunal has, after perusing
the ACR of the review applicant for the relevant period, the assessment sheet of the DPC
as well as the minutes of DPC, has held:
“Thus out of the five years’ ACRs, which have been considered, the ‘Grading’
below benchmark has been recorded in only the year 2003-04.”
7. That since as per above paras, and as per the findings of this Hon’ble Tribunal,
the review applicant meets the then existing criteria for the promotion, the Hon’ble Tribunal
have directed that the un-communicated adverse remarks be communicated and a
representation by applicant be made, etc. But the Hon’ble Tribunal, it is most respectfully
submitted, inadvertently did not give a direction that the respondents grant promotion to
the applicant as Chief Engg. as 4 out of 5 years ACR were found ‘Very Good’ and hence
meeting the bench mark. Since the applicant was found by this Hon’ble Tribunal as
meeting the Benchmark, the exercise of the communicating the adverse of the 5 th year
was actually not necessary as the applicant would have earned his promotion as Chief
Engg on the basis of the 4 ‘Very Good’ ACRs, as found by the Hon’ble Tribunal in para
4 of the judgment. This finding of 4 ‘Very Good’ ACR has perhaps slipped into the
background when Your Lordships were giving final directions to the respondents in the
judgment. Thus there is an error on the face of the record which has materially effected
the final outcome and the facts, as found by this Tribunal from the records of the ACRs,
DPC minutes, would only result in a clear direction to the respondents to promote the
applicant as Chief Engg. along with his batch mates in the year 2006.”
The contention of the Review applicant is that in view of the remarks, the applicant has four ‘Very
Good’ ACRs and, therefore, he should be promoted because he meets the benchmark.