The High Court accepted the prayer made by the Union Public Service Commission as well as the Union of India while disposing of P.C.T. No.772 of 2002 and W.P.C.T. No.803 of 2002, vide its order dated 20.12.2002.
Dissatisfied with the above order, the appellant Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal has approached this Court, through the instant civil appeals.
Since the appellants have number been found unfit for promotion in the over all assessment of the DPC meeting held on February 5 and 6, 2001, we direct all the respondents viz.
The pointed companytention of the respondent, in this behalf was, that all the three Annual Confidential Reports in which he had been graded as good detailed above had number been companymunicated to him.
Secretary, Deptt.
On account of the fact, that the appellant did number satisfy the benchmark stipulated in the DoPT guidelines, he was number companysidered fit for promotion, to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
The appellant raised a challenge against the action of the respondents authorities, in superseding his claim for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, by filing O.A. No.290 of 2001, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, on the ground that uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports companyld number be taken into companysideration, to defeat his claim for promotion.
The Administrative Tribunal accepted the prayer made by the appellant and accordingly passed the following directions In view of the above, we find merit in both the applications.
of Revenue, Chairman CBDT, Member CBDT and Chairman, UPSC to reconsider the cases of both the applicants by holding the meeting of Review DPC on urgent basis on the basis of our above observations keeping in view the assessment made by the DPC in the meeting held on February 5 and 6, 2001 and to recommend their case within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the companypetent authority for further necessary action including grant of all the companysequential benefits to the applicants from the date their immediate juniors have been granted as a result of recommendations of the DPC meeting held on February 5 and 6, 2001 within a further period of three weeks and companymunicate the final order to the applicants within a week thereafter.
In other words only such of the Commissioners of Income Tax, whose service record was very good would be treated as satisfying the merit companyponent in the process of selection.
In so far as the issue of number consideration of the claim of the appellant is companycerned, we are satisfied that the proposition of law relevant for the companytroversy in hand, was declared upon by this Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and others, 2009 16 SCC 146, wherein a three Judge Division Bench of this Court, held as under It is number in dispute that CAT, Patna Bench passed an order recommending the authority number to rely on the order of caution dated 22.09.1997 and the order of adverse remarks dated 09.06.1998.
