Promotion denied
kumarjainn
(Querist) 06 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
sir
The judgement delivered by High court, delhi reads as follows:
.... Direction is issued to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by holding review DPC and if found suitable for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion from 1.7.98. we are informed that the petitioner was subsequently given promotion w.e.f.1.7.2001, he shall be given arrears on repromoted post from 1.7.98 to 30.6.2001 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotions etc.
The department called me to appear before the Reveiw assessment board 1998 to brief my work report and not to appear for interview/assessment. I appeared before the review board on 27.9.11
the recommendation of the Review Assessment Board 1998 has come and the recommendation is "not yet fit" for promotion.
The review assessment board went beyond its jurisdiction and overlooking the office letter assessed me and gave its recommendation.
Is there any hope left in this case
in light of the following rules .
I may add i have received two promotions one in the year 2001 and another in 2007. both have to be shifted back from 1998 and other on 2003.
should i give representation to the department or directly file contempt of court. has the review assessment board done wrong or not.
Satya Mani Tiwari
(Expert) 06 November 2011
Contempt of the court is the right action to be taken.
It will be more forceful if the Contempt is filed against the members of Review Assessment board by name not by post.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2011
Opinion of both the above experts seems to be wrong. If you properly interpret the judgment, you will find, there is neither any contempt of court, nor any sort of non-compliance of the orders of the court on the part of the department.
So, if you file any case on any of the two grounds, you are likely to lose the case in the court in the wake of earlier judgment.
So, better reinterpret the language of the judgement, according to which the court has not given clear orders for promotion from 1.7.1998. The judgment clearly speaks:
"IF FOUND SUITABLE for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion from 1.7.98."
The department has complied with the direction of the court in holding review DPC. If the DPC has not found suitable, the department would not be obliged to give promotion in the absence of the recommendation of the DPC, against the rules of promotion.
However, as I earlier also pointed out that the Recview DPC may also work with bias on the hint from the departmental authorities against whom you launched a court case. BUT, if you can prove the instance of bias on the part of the DPC, you can win your case on that ground only. Perhaps, you had mentioned in some of your earlier query that the previous DPC made a recommendation in your favour, but you could not qualify in the interview for assessment. if that be a case, you can try on that ground to show bias of the present Review DPC.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 06 November 2011
sir
As per statutory rule i have to be considered for appearing before the Assessment Board if have obtained 60% average marks in last five years ACR (Annual confidential reports). This eligibility criteria was increased to 80% by executive letter and i was not considered for interview in 1998 as I had obtained only 78% marks . I was promoted in the year 2001 after interview.
DPC does not mean taking interview.
DPC means to check if I hold 60a% marks and that there is no uncommunicated adverse entry in the ACR.
department asked me to bried my work and not to appear for interview/assessment.
then how can the board assess me and give assessment report.
i thing board has crossed its jurisdiction
ignoring that letter
pl. advice
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
Your petition probably did not restrict to challenge the raise of percentage of 60% to 80% of the criteria of interview for assessment. If not so, your advocate was required to advise you for revision petition or appeal for obtaining specific orders of the court for your promotionm BUT NOT have been satisfied merely on the direction of the court, like "IF FOUND SUITABLE."
Needless to emphasize, any opinion sought from experts on extremely partial facts may not benefit you.
So, unless experts see your case in totality, including your petition and judgment etc., you are likely to get rather deep in the state of confusion and darkness due to contradictory opinions of the experts, as based on partial facts, rather than getting some viable solution.
IN FACT YOU NEED FULL TIME CONSULTANCY FROM SOME EXPERIENCED SERVICE EXPERT whom you can rely and show your complete case documents in person.
In this case, you have also not mentioned, what your own advocate for the case has said about it and with what reasons?
kumarjainn
(Querist) 06 November 2011
sir
i had filed an additional affidavit informing the court after getting promotion in 2001
"..... as this event happened subsequent to filing of writ petition and issue of DB rule it is necessary to place this subsequent development on record to enable this Hon'ble court to suitably mould the relief eventually granted to the petitioner.
my advocate has said to appear for interview do'nt be afraid and that department should not fail you. its not intended like that.
can i write to the department that the assessment board has exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing me.
Guest
(Expert) 06 November 2011
As already advised, fragmented information and partial facts on your part may not help you to get proper guidance from the experts.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 09 November 2011
sir
Sorry to disturb you again but it was necessary to bring the following point for your advise.
The judgement delivered by High court, delhi reads as follows:
para 8: ".... Direction is issued to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by holding review DPC and if found suitable for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion from 1.7.98.
Para 9: we are informed that the petitioner was subsequently given promotion w.e.f.1.7.2001, he shall be given arrears on repromoted post from 1.7.98 to 30.6.2001 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotions etc."
The judgement was dictated in the open court. After the dicatation of para 8 my advocate pleaded that I have already been promoted in the year 2001. then judge dictated para 9.
Thus the judge also meant to honour my result of assessment board 2001 which has declared me fit for promotion and implement the result of 2001 from 1998.
The stenographer has typed everything dictated in court including para 8 which should have now been deleted. The department got confused by that para 8 and took my revier assessment board and declared me unfit for promotion from 1998. This has been done wrong by e rong interpretation of the judgement by the department. how this can be corrected. i have made representation to the department informing about this error which has occured but i don't think department will accept it. i want to avoid furhter litigation.
review assessment can be done only if someone is not illegally considered for promotion for any back year(as I was illegally not considered for promotion in the year 1998) and has not received promotion. As i have already received promotion in the year 2001 question of holding review assessment for the year 1998 does not arise as also can be interpreted from the para 9 of the judgment given above.
kindly advice and confirm and what further action i can take.
thanks
Guest
(Expert) 09 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
From your latest post, it is clear that para 8 & 9 of the judgment are quite contradictory to each other. So, none else other then the competnet court can rectify the mistake to make the concerned department work accordingly. You may have to approach the competent court to get the error of the judgment rectified.
In fact, the contents of para 9 become useless in the wake of direction given to the respondent in para 8 of the judgment. Immediately on receipt of the copy of the judgment, your advocate should have appropriately taken up the matter with the court to get the lacuna of judgment rectified.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 09 November 2011
sir
even if the high court gives the direction to honour the result of 2001 and give me promotion from 1998 on the basis of result of 2001 what will the department do ?
will the department not appeal against this order in Supreme court.? then what will be the gain ? again the matter will go for five/ten years. unnecessary remain in tension.
pl. advice.
Guest
(Expert) 09 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
Unless challenged through appeal, court's order would be required to be complied. However, right of the department to appeal against such order cannot be denied, if the department prefers to do so. If appealed, that is likely to take its own time.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 09 November 2011
sir
thanks
this was the case for 1998
In the year 1999 I appeared before the assessment Board, 1999. I was not declared fit for promotion as I did not obtain 80% marks in the intrview. But definitely I must have obtained 60% marks in the interview. But I was not delared fit for promotion as the department followed revised eligibility criteria. the statutory criteria is 60% marks and the rule for promotion by assessment board is given below:
" If the overall merit calibre of the candidate as judged by the assessment board matches with the qualifying marks required for his residency period, the candidate should be recommended as fit for promotion otherwise the recommendation should be not yet fit.
As the qualifying marks for residency is 60% i should be declared fit for promotion if I have obtained 60% marks in the assessment board, 1999
I have written to the department to declare me fit for promotion in the year 1999 as I have obtained 60% marks in the assessment board, 1999
Am I right for demanding promotion from 1999 and should the department accept it.
As I had filed the case in CAT in Jan. 1999 and the assessmient was held in April, 1999 the department was angry and resulted failing me in the board.
pl. advice
Guest
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
Please don't mind, posting of any such fragmented information here at different times would not help you. You and your advocate has already missed the train at the right time long back. To reach the destination again, you need to take some effective step with practical action on your part. I have already pointed out about the lacuna in the judgment that needs be got removed. Only the competent court can help to remove the draw back of the judgment.
Hope you would remember that I had already pointed out in reply to your earlier post that due to irritation on account of court case the higher authorities might influence the Review DPC against you and that happened, as revealed from your information.
What you have written now, e.g., "As I had filed the case in CAT in Jan. 1999 and the assessmient was held in April, 1999 the department was angry and resulted failing me in the board," your advocate could well have taken up this point before the court at that time and would also have been careful in getting the correct judgment in your favour rather than getting you the controversial judgment.
Since your case is strong, you must not hesitate to get the rectification done without fear that the department would appeal against the corrected judgment. Your loss of annual increments, seniority amongst your colleagues for further promotion and pay hikes, permanent loss in your retirement benefits till your whole life would be incalculable, if you stop merely with the fear that the authorities would appeal against the corrected judgment.
On this forum, the experts can only guide and advice you, but right action rests solely on you.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 10 November 2011
sir
i appreciate your advice
My fear is on the following account:
1. My next regular promotion is due next year. I have to appear for interview assessment in May 2012 for next promotion. If i approach court now I apprehend they will fail me again.
2. Will the department not harras me. Though there is no procedure for transfer as a scientist we work in a lab of our subject what happens if the department gets angry and transfer me out
Pl. excuse me.
pl. advice
kumarjainn
(Querist) 10 November 2011
sir
perhaps, the judgement looks to be clear:
and the interpretation should be like this.
Para 8 says that in case i have not received promotion my case for promotion should be considered on the basis on Review DPC .
para 9 says if i have received promotion my case for promotion should be considered by ante dating the promotion w.e.f.the due date i.e. 1.7.98.
ease claify
pl
Guest
(Expert) 10 November 2011
It all depends upon individual to individual interpretation.
However, about your promotion due in next year, nothing can be predicted about the bias or fairness of the authorities.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 10 November 2011
sir
"the rule was that a scientist securing less than 60% marks shall not be called for assessment."
department interpreted it a scientist securing less than 60 was not eligible for assessment but above 60 they have the option and so they called for assessment only those who got more than 80.
court did not agree to this and 60 was declared as correct ruleby the court.
Similarly in the above judgement I think department has done the same error in interpretation of the judgment.
so if I have not received promotion then they should take my review dpc otherwise ante date the promotion.
i have made representaion to the department on the above line.
pl. advice if my interpretation is correct or not
Guest
(Expert) 10 November 2011
Mr. Kumar,
Time and again repetition may probably not help you. That all depends upon your own decision what action you prefer to take to tackle your problem. I have alredy expressed my opinion on your case.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 13 November 2011
sir
we have to approach the court for correction of lacuna in the judgment,
my promotion which is due next year will be shifted to the year 2008 if every thing goes well. But the department will have to take the interview for promotion. But again the department will be biased. Can we request the court for protection and what type of protection can the court provide.
Our promotion is based on FCS system i.e. there is no competition in promotion. If you are found fit by the assessment board you are promoted in situ i.e. post is upgraded.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 14 November 2011
sir
the department vide there letter dated 8th sept wrote:
I may please be directed to brief the review Assessment board about my work done.
Then I wrote to them to honour the result of my promotion of the year 2001 for 1998.
then department wrote vide letter dated 22 sept.
Further it may be noted that he has been asked to brief the Review assessment board regarding his work report and not to appear for interview/assessment.
That means I have not to be assessed or interviewed by the department.
Qs. arises:
1. Ofcourse in keeping with the judgment in para 8 and 9 they have decided not to take my interview.
2. when they wrote i do not have to appear for assessment/interview then how and why can they declared me "not yet fit".
3. since they have implemented the judgement in wrong way why contempt of court cannot be filed.
4. if contempt cannot by filed then what case can be filed and in whcih court - High court or in CAT (tribunal) and on what ground
kumarjainn
(Querist) 14 November 2011
sir
when the department has written that I have to brief my work report and there will be no interview/assessment then I had no reason not to attend the review assessment board. the department has called me to appear before the review assessment board in "Vacuum". If i do not appear then they would have taken the stand that they were only completing the formality and not declaring my fit/or not fit in the assessment board.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 14 November 2011
sir
i am stuck. The justice who has delivered the judgement can only interpret the judgement.
how to file a case and on what heading like review/contempt/correction/interpretation of judgement /writ
at least some heading is required to file a case in High court so that the case goes to the same justice who has delivered the judgement.
pl. guide
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 November 2011
You can seek clarification of the decision by the High Court. Then probably it will go to the Judge concerned.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 15 November 2011
sir
the respondents have implemented the judgment after interpreting the judgement wrongly. i think according to para 9 they should antedate my result of 2001 w.e.f. the due date i.e. 1.7.98. but they have done fresh assessment for 1998 as per para 8 (mentioned above in the link) that too by deceiving me. they clearly mentioned in the letter that there will be no interview/assessment and they declared me not fit.
now can I file application in high court for clarification of the judgment and for implimentation accordingly
kumarjainn
(Querist) 16 November 2011
sir
I discussed with my lawyer. He said that the judgement is OK. The interpretation made by the department is correct. They should hold DPC and if found suitable by the DPC then only they will declare you fit.
further he said that we can challange in the CAT (tribunal) by filing a fresh case whether the DPC has followed the procedure or not. They have the records, Calling me to appear before the Review assessment boad was not required and is redundand. We can call for the record of the DPC through tribunal and see if they haave followed the procedure or not.
The department says that in our system promotion is done by interview and not by DPC and this is statutory rule. So we will follow the procedure of our department. Judge has by mistake written Review DPC but his intention was to take review interview as the promotion in our department is done after taking interview.so we will follow the procedure of interview.
in one of your reply above you have mentioned that if the judgement delivered by the court is not appealed it has to implemented in its face value. that means the department should take the review DPC and not interview method for deciding my case for promotion in the year 1998.
Am I right or not?
If i am right then department should follow the procedure of Review DPC only.
In review DPC what department has to do.
1. they have to check that whether I have obtained 60% marks in last five years or not for being eligible for assessment. There is no system of marking as Very good, good, in our ACR.
2. Whether there is any commucated adverse entry in the ACR or not. I have not been communicated any adverse entry in my ACR. If they write something adverse in my ACR now it has no meaning because it has not been communicated to me.
3. There is no comparision with other candidates as we follow FCS (flexible complimentary scheme) system i.e. if you are found fit you are promoted and the post is upgraded.
4. In DPC system work is not assessed. Only ACR is checked on above points.
5. In interview system the decision of the board depends on many factor like your work reports during the period, interview question answer, etc.etc.
now if i file a case in CAT as suggested by my
lawyer will i be in a advantageous position or not. Will i get decision in my favour or not. and if I get decision in my favour again department can appeal and again it will take ten years so what is the gain. pl. advice whether i should go for filing a case in CAT or not.
Guest
(Expert) 16 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
I did not reply your previous supplementary queries, as my earlier replies were considered to be quite sufficient to satisfy your queries. Shri Ramachandran also provided you correct advice, but it seems, you also don't want to adhere to the advice of learned Shri Ramachandran in your case.
But, now in your latest post I found that your advocate is trying to misdirect your case, at first by treating the contradictory judgment, as OK, when it is quite evident to be contrary by comparison of paragraphs 8 & 9 of the judgment.
2ndly, your advocate is trying to misdirect your case by challenging the process of DPC on the ground whether the DPC has followed the procedure or not. I am sure, by doing so, you will face only another failure in your case and would spoil your case altogether, besides wasting your money.
The question arises, are you sure whether the DPC did not follow the correct procedure? By doing this you and your advocate will be hitting in pitch dark only to struggle hard to come out of his self created problem when you or your advocate don't have even slight inkling about any irregularity on the part of the Review DPC.
If the Department did not have the rules of DPC or Review DPC, and had only the interview system, then again the judgment becomes wrong on this very ground, which your advocate only can be said to have faltered by not getting appropriate information and also not objecting to the wrong judgment at the time of judgment.
With due apology to your advocate, if he happens to see my reply, I feel he had not fought your case for justice, but merely for enchashing his time devoted on your case and has still proposed you to fight for a wrong cause with intention just to earn more fee from you, instead of advising you to appeal against the wrong orders of the court on two grounds, (1) the contradictory judgment, and (2) wrong order about the Review DPC, which is not in vogue in your department. The question arises, when no DPC was held earlier, what order of the original DPC was to be reviewed by a Review DPC?
REST DEPENDS UPON THE WISDOM OF BOTH OF YOU AND YOUR ADVOCATE.
HOWEVER, SORRY FOR MY FRANK OPINION.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 16 November 2011
sir
On the latest advice received I approached my advocate for pursuing the case as per the advice received from your side. I met him yesterday but he did not accept the point of view. therefore i sent to you afterever he told me for your comments. now as i haave received your comments i will plan next step and will revert back when ever i feel like
thanks
kumarjainn
(Querist) 16 November 2011
sir
I did not appear for interview assesment in 1998. In 2001 i was declared fit for promotion by the Interview assessment board, 2001.
Even if we proceed further has the court power to anti date the promotion of the year 2001 to 1998 or the court can only ask the department to take interiew assessment for the year 1998. In that case again the department will call me for assessment interview, 1998 and again fail me. Then all the effort in court case will be wasted.
Then is there any use in proceeding further
pl. advice
Guest
(Expert) 16 November 2011
Dear Kumar,
My final advice, it is useless to repeat everything time and again and continue to make mere presumptions without taking any effective step.
Sorry dear, I don't feel any more advice is needed to be given to you on my part. Everything depends upon the wisdom and interpretations of you and your advocate. Nobody can predict what will be the judgment by the court in your case in future and what your department would or would not do, merely on making presumptions, as you try to do.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 16 November 2011
Dear Mr. Kumarjainn,
When as per the Department the next promotion will be done on the basis of an interview, the Court has no power (plenerary, inherent or otherwise) whatsoever to compel the department to conduct a DPC. By saying conducting a Review DPC all that the Court has meant was to make a review (not necessarily through a DPC, but what would have in the normal circumstances the Department would have done if for the first time they have to consider a person for promotion. That is all).
Therefore, your assumption that the Court only directed to conduct Review DPC and not re-interview is absolutely baseless and such an interpretation is clearly to your own liking.
If only it had been brought to the notice of the Court that the promotion is based on interview and not on the basis of DPC, the Court would have come out with some other suggestion/direction or order. This thing did not happen - neither you pointed out to the court, nor the Department.
Therefore, instead of endlessly debating this point over this forum, it would be better for you to either go ahead and file another case before the CAT against the decision of the Department, or seek clarification from the HC about the true import and meaning of its orders.
In any case, please bear in mind, that any lead or hint or views expressed in this forum would only be a guide to you and certainly an ultimate thing. The final relief has to come to you only through the Court and the Department. Therefore, follow what your Advocate has advised you.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 16 November 2011
In the last paragraph of the above reply, please read as "certainly not an ultimate thing."
kumarjainn
(Querist) 16 November 2011
sirs
thanks
I am ultimately deopendent on the advocate who can only file an application in court seeking clarification on the judgement. I also handed over to him a draft copy of the application for seeking clarification prepared by me. But he did not accept that there is any contradiction in the judgement. how to convince him as there is no method of communication like with you all where I could write my point repeatedly. In that case i will have to change my advocate. can you advice someone who can understand and proceed further in the court. thanks
kumarjainn
(Querist) 18 November 2011
sir
thanks,
The statutury rule is that the assessment board will recommend a candidatate as "fit for promotion", "not yet fit" or the fittness is deferred by one year. When the candidate appears for assessment and the promotion is deferred by one year then in the subsequent year he is given promotion without appearing for the interview in the assessment board. From administrative side only security check is done and if he meets the security criteria then he is promoted.
like in deferred case he is promoted after security check similarly if the promotion is to be preponed then DPC( i.e. also a type of seurity check) as expressed by court should be perhaps sufficient. It means court has asked in Para 8 to prepone the assessment of 2001 to 1998 after security check i.e., DPC. Perhaps there was nothing wrong done by court.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 20 November 2011
sir
The following judgement also supports the fact the in the para 9 of the judgement The hon'ble justice has clearly mentioned for retrospective implementation of my result of 2001 w.e.f. 1998. Qs of holding reassessment does not arise.
In the following judgment when he was granted appointment and promotion from retrospective date obviously he did not appear for reassessment.
In para 23 below when nature of work does not change again the promotion is effected with retrospectie effect without appearing for re assessment.
Therefore holding reassessment by my department was against the prescription of the judgment.
On this line clarification can be sought from the court.
pl. advice
WA.No.2905 of 2002
Against the Judgment DTD 1.10.2002 in OP.35018/2000
M.K.Sucheendran : Appellant
Vs.
State of Kerala & ors : Respondents
1. Appellant/petitioner was appointed as Assistant public Prosecutor Grade 11 on 1.8.1987. The main relief sought in the original petition was for a direction to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade 11 and as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade 1 with effect from the dates the third respondent was posted to those posts (19.10.1984 & 19.9.1989 respectively). It is an admitted case that while working out communal rotation, a mistake happened and at the place of third respondent, the petitioner ought to have been promoted. During the pendency of the original petition, the petitioner retired from service on 28.2.2002. By Ext.P10 dated 8.5.2002, he was allowed notional effect to his appointment as Assistant public Prosecutor grade 11 with effect from 19.10.1984 and as Assistant public Prosecutor Grade 1 with effect from 19.9.1989. However, he was not given the backwages, but only notional benefits with retrospective date of appointment as well as retrospective date of promotion.
"23. (c) Promotions which do not involve a change of duties shall have effect from the date of the vacancy which occasions the promotion".
Therefore, there is a clear provision in the service rules that promotions which do not involve a change of duties should be given effect from the date on which the vacancy arose. Here, there is no change of duties. It is only promotional aspect with a change of salary alone and for no fault of the petitioner, he was denied promotion at the particular date. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled to the difference in salary in the promoted post for the period from 19.9.1989 till 11.7.1995 from which date he was retrospectively promoted. The arrears of the same should be paid to him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The wit appeal is allowed to the above extent.
…………………………………………..
kumarjainn
(Querist) 20 November 2011
sir
Hon'ble Chief justice (acting) of delhi high court who has delivered his judgement in my case WP(C) 4545/2000 must be knowing the law that when promotion is implemented from retrospective effect then no re-ssessment is required and therefore when he was pleaded that i have received promotion in 2001 he immidiately dictated para 9 for repromotion. now the department has interpreted the judgement in wrong way and called me for reassessment. This is deliberately a wrong action done by the department only to harrass me.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 21 November 2011
sir
the ruling is true where the procedure for promotion in the department is based on assessment of ACR(i.e. following DPC system of promotion) and/or after attending some course.
In our department there is a FCS system of promotion i.e. situ promotion meaning that post is upgraded.
the promotion is granted in two stages
(1) If we obtain average 60% marks in last five years ACR then we are directed to appear before the Interview assessment board for assessement.
(2) If the interview board recommends us fit for promotion then only we are granted promotion. thus two tier system.
As the department has changed the statutory eligibility criteria 0f 60% marks to 80% marks by executive letter I was not directed to appear before the assessment board,1998 for interview as i had obtained average 78% marks . I represented in court. in the meantime i was recommended for promotion by Interview assessment board 2001.
perhaps under the impression that our department follows DPC system the court has given a ruling to honour my promotion for the year 2001 and gave me promotion with retrospective effect i.e. 1998 in para 9 when it came to know about my promotion in 2001. In para 8 it has mentioned about holding review DPC. Case no. WP(C)4545/2000 delhi high court.
But the department feels there is an error and process of interview cannot be skipped and called me for assessemnt interview , 1998, Though the board did not take my interview but has declared me not yet fit for promotion for the year 1998.
Due to departments fault I was not considered for promotion in the year 1998.
But interview is in the hands of department
and they can fail me.
Is there any supreme court ruling which says if I have been promoted in the year 2001 on the recommendation of the Interview assessment board,2001 then if i have to be considered for promotion from 1998 then process of interview has to be skipped and promotion is to be granted by honouring the interview result of 2001.
then we can revert back to high court for further orders otherwise the department will insist on completing the process of interview for promotion.
In several court case where retrospective promotion is granted they all followed DPC system of promotion and were denied promotion because of some adverse enteries in the ACR and when these enteries were declaed illegal by the court the court could grant them promotion with retrospective effect as the formalities for promotion was complete.
in may case the eligibility of 60% marks was met but the interview remains to be held and therefore the court directly cannot perhaps grant promotion to me as in the case where DPC system is followed.
We you can provide some ruling of any other court then it will be helpful and we will have a case to be persued
thanks
Previous
Next
REPLY
kumarjainn
(Querist) 21 November 2011
sir
I have got one reference in which CAT Delh
has granted excemtion to Mr. L.C. Jindal OA NO. 1842/2004 from appearing from interview for consideration of promotion with retrospective effect. This excemption was sustained vide high court delhi in case No. WP(c) 11861/2005 and was implemented by the department after Contempt Petition in CAT. But i do not know under what circustances the court has given excemption. The review DPC was held after the petitoner had retired but his promotion was due before his retirement.
Both these judgemnents are not availabe in the site. Can you pl. arrange to send me a copy of this judgement. it may be of help to me.
it must have been published in some journal
thanks
kumarjainn
(Querist) 24 November 2011
sir
In department where FCS (Flexible Complementary Scheme) system is followed for promotion like our department the promotion is recommended by Assessment Board after appearing for interview assessment. The role of ACR is limited and to see if the candidate fulfil the minimum requirement of marks in his ACR to become eligible for appearing before the Assessment Board for interview assessment. In such cases even if the court corrects the error committed by the government and directs the department to reconsider the case of the employee for promotion with retrospective date the employee is again in the mercy of the department for assessment interview. The department against whom the employee has filed a case will fail him in the interview assessment for filing a case in court and going against the department. Thus in cases where the promotion is based on FCS system the judgement becomes nullified as the promotion is to be granted by the department after holding interview assessment. This is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Article 14 and 16 of the constitution as in FCS system even if the judgement is in favour of the employee he cannot get the promotion and only the formality of the process is done whereas in DPC system of promotion if the judgement is in favour of the employee he gets relief and the promotion is granted with retrospective date even by the court itself.
Therefore the reassessment and/or assessment by interview assessment should be waived by the court in cases where the candidate could not be considered for assessment due to fault of the govt.
will including this point also will be helpful for further representation in court agaginst the order of the office letter declaring me not yet fit for promotion.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 03 December 2011
sir
In response to my representation for failing me in the interview assessment - The department vide their letter No. DOP/06/60034/NKJ/AB dated 24th Nov., 2011 stated that the functions of DPC in DRDO for promotions of Scientists in the grades of Scientist ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ are being carried out by the Assessment Boards, constituted in accordance with DRDS Rules 1979 as amended from time to time. That petitioner has earned all his promotions upto the Sc. ‘E’ under the provisions of DRDS Rules only. It is, therefore, but natural that review of his promotion from Sc. ‘C’ to ‘D’ w.e.f. 01 July, 1998 as directed by Hon’ble High Court was to be considered by the Review Assessment Board, constituted as per the ibid rules. The petitioner was therefore, asked to brief the Review Assessment Board regarding his work report for the period from 1993 to 1997 and not to appear for interview/assessment. Accordingly, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Sc. ‘D’ for the year 1998 on 27th Sept, 2011 by the Review Assessment Board and was recommended ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion to the grade of Sc. ‘D’.
Thus, the Review Assessment Board, 1998 has declared me as ‘Not Yet Fit’ on the briefing of the work report and without appearing for interview/assessment. Thus, the department had waived the interview/assessment. As I was declared ‘Not Yet Fit’ by the Assessment Board this shows that the Review Assessment Board, 1998 has awarded less than 60% marks in the Review Assessment Board, 1998 after the briefing of work report for which the department in appraising appraisal reports has awarded more than 77+ % of marks every year during the five years residency period. This is a significant difference in marks awarded by two committees on the same work report which has reviewed the work report and this clearly shows there is some error somewhere.
My advocate does not see any scope in seeking clarification from the court. Is there any ground on which we can go to high court now.
I will also have to search for another lawyer who can do the job
kumarjainn
(Querist) 03 December 2011
sir
I had prepared the following draft and sent to me advocate
IN THE HIGH COURT OF D DELHI
Misc Application No. in WP(C ) No. 4545/2000
NISHIT KUMAR JAIN
Vs.
U O I & others
SUB: Clarification of the Judgement delivered on 7.7.2011 by Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) A.K. Sikri and Hon’ble Justice M.L.Mehta
1. The petitioner herein is an employee in the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) which comes under the Ministry of Defence. He is working as Scientist ‘E’. He joined as Scientist Grade ‘B’ in DRDO on 24.4.1987. The petitioner was promoted as Scientist grade ‘C’ w.e.f. 1 July, 1993. Next promotion is to the grade of Scientist ‘D’. As the petitioner was not directed to appear before the Assessment Board, 1998 for consideration for promotion in the year 1998 after completing five years service in the grade of Scientist ‘C’ he made representation to the department. When he did not get relief from the department he filed Original Application No. 102/99 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi. The Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the application on totally an unapproachable basis. Then WP(C) No. 4545/2000 was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, Delhi.
2. After filing of the Writ Petition and issue of DB rule the petitioner was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.7.2001. Further he was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ w.e.f. 2007 after completing six years service in the grade of Scientist ‘D’. As the promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ and Scientist ‘E’ were achieved after filing of this writ petition and issue of DB Rule therefore by filing additional affidavit this fact was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble court so that court could mould its relief eventually granted to the petitioner. These promotions are governed by Defence Research and Development Service Rules, 1979 framed under Article 309 of the constitution.
3. The Hon’ble High court by its Judgement allowed the application and made the following orders.
8. ......Accordingly rule is made absolute. The impugned judgment dated 1st May, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is hereby set aside. The O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal is allowed. As a consequence, direction is issued to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by holding review DPC and if found suitable for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion to the post of Scientist ‘D’ with effect from the date his juniors were promoted on the basis of Internal Screening Committee which was held on 1st July, 1998.
9. We are informed that the petitioner was subsequently given promotion to the post of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f.1st July, 1998, he shall be given arrears on repromoted post from 1st July, 1998 to 30th July, 2001 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotion etc..
10. since the respondents have not appeared, no order as to costs.
After the dictation of Para 8 of the judgement given above the petitioner pleaded that he has already received promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.7.2001 the Hon’ble Justice immediately dictated para 9 of the judgement.
However, everything has been typed in the judgement as it was dictated.
4. Thus, from the judgment also it is clear that petitioner should have been given promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.7.1998 by honouring the result of the Assessment Board, 2001 which has promoted him to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 2001 and this is the only just and fair method for consideration of his case for promotion from Sc. 'C' to the grade of Sc. ‘D’ for the year 1998.
5. Perhaps, the judgement looks to be clear and the interpretation should be like this.
Para 8 says that in case petitioner has not been promoted subsequently then his case for promotion should be considered on the basis on Review DPC i.e., he do not have to appear for interview assessment.
Para 9 says that if the petitioner has subsequently received promotion then his case for promotion should be considered by retrospective implementing the promotion w.e.f. the due date i.e. 1.7.98 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotion etc..
6. Thus, according to the judgment the petitioner has to be accorded promotion as Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.7.1998 and be given arrears on repromoted post from 1.7.1998 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotion etc.
Thus, after completing five years service in the grade of Scientist ‘D’ the petitioner will be eligible for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘E’ i.e., w.e.f. 1.7.2003 and be given arrears of pay and allowances from 1st July, 2003 till the date of promotion to the next higher grade. Further, after completing five years service in the grade of Scientist ‘E’ i.e. w.e.f. 1st July, 2008 the petitioner will be eligible for consideration of promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘F’ and given arrear of pay and allowances etc., on promoted post with effect from 1st July, 2008 till date. This is shown in the table below:
Designation Promoted w.e.f. Repromotion due w.e.f. Arrears for the period
Scientist ‘D’ 1.7.2001 1.7.1998 1.7.1998 – 30.6.2003
Scientist ‘E’ 1.7.2007 1.7.2003 1.7.2003 – 30.6.2008
Scientist ‘F’ - 1.7.2008 1.7.2008 – till date
7. However, the department directed the petitioner to appear before the “DRDS Review Assessment Interview for the year 1998” vide its letter No. RAC/08/AB/Review/1998 dated 8th Sept., 2011. The relevant portion of the said letter is given below:
2. It has been decided to hold Review Assessment Board of Sh. NKJain, Sc. ‘E’, ISSA for promotion from Sc. ‘C’ to Sc’D’ for the year 1998 on 27th Sept., 2011 at 10.00 Hrs. at RAC, Delhi.
3. Sh. NK Jain may please be directed to brief the Review Assessment Board about his work done during 1993-97. He should also be directed to submit nine copies of bio-data to RAC for the assessment year 1998……
The copy of letter No. RAC/08/AB/Review/1998 dated 8th Sept., 2011 is filed herewith.
8 Smelling there is something wrong the petitioner vide its letter dated 15th Sept, 2011 and 19th Sept., 2011 represented against the order asking him to appear before the Review Assessment Interview Board, 1998 on the following grounds:
(i) He was promoted to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ by the Assessment Board, 2001 and therefore as such appearing before the Assessment Board again for the same grade is not required.
(ii) He prayed to issue directions to honour the interview result which he has already cleared and promoted to the higher grade for consideration of his case for promotion to the grade of Scientist ‘D’ w.e.f. 1.7.98.
(iii) Re-appearing for Interview and/or examination is not justified and also does not ensure the same success. In this circumstances holding a review DPC as mentioned in the judgement is the only best and justified way for reconsideration of his case.
(iv) He requested to kindly reconsider their decision for directing him to physically appear before the DRDS Review Assessment Interview for the year 1998 and intimate him accordingly.
(v) He expressed his fear to appear in the Review Assessment Board, 1998 as he will be in an undue disadvantageous position and will not get the same success than if he had appeared in an Assessment Board in 1998 where he would have been appearing as a normal candidate and would have therefore been in an advantageous position. This will also be in line with the judgement which says to reconsider the case by holding review DPC. Thus Interview assessment was not to be done as fitness was not to be compared with other scientist.
(vi) He emphasised that re-appearing for interview and/or in an examination does not ensure the same success and that too when there is a Review Assessment Interview where the candidate is in an undue disadvantageous position.
(vii) As he is working as Scientist ‘E’ therefore appearing for a Review Assessment Interview 1998 is horrifying and will certainly lead to condition in which it can never produce a just, fair and bonafide result.
(viii) He therefore prayed that they may be graciously pleased to issue an appropriate orders and allow his claim and issue directions to honour the interview result which he has already cleared and promoted to the higher grade for consideration of his case and pass any other order or orders which are deemed necessary in the interest of justice and equity.
A true copy of representation dated 15th Sept, 2011 and 19th Sept., 2011 is filed herewith.
9. In response to his letters dated 8th and 15th Sept, 2011 vide letter No. RAC/DB/AB/Review/1998 dated 22nd Sept, 2011 the department reiterated that the petitioner has to brief the Review Assessment Board, 1998 and not to appear for interview /Assessment. The relevant portion of the said letter is given below:
2. Representation dated 15th Sept. 2011/19th Sept, 2011 from Sh. NKJ Jain on the above mentioned subject have been noted. Further it may be noted that Sh. NK Jain has been asked to brief the Review Assessment Board regarding his work report for the period 1993-1997 and not to appear for interview/assessment. It is therefore reiterated that Sh. NK Jain may please be directed to brief the Review Assessment Board about his work done during 1993-1997 on 27th Sep 2011 at 1000 Hrs at RAC, Delhi, as already conveyed vide our above referred letter.
A true copy of the said letter is filed herewith.
10. When the Review Assessment Board was not to make the interview/assessment vide office letter there was no reason for the petitioner not to appear before the Review Assessment Board. If the petitioner had not appeared before the Assessment Board department could have taken the stand that they were not taking the assessment and therefore as the petitioner had not appeared they could have declared him absent and not implemented the promotion from 1.7.1998. Therefore the petitioner was forced to appear before the Review Assessment Board, 1998.
11. There was no new information which the Review Assessment Board, 1998 was to examine. All the information which the Review Assessment Board, 1998 had to examine was already available even in the year 1998 and was fixed and there was no randomness in this information. The randomness was only in the Assessment Board, 1998. On the basis of fixed information alone the Review Assessment Board, 1998 cannot declare him as ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion, Therefore, the Review Assessment board was motivated and declared him as ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion. The petitioner has obtained average 77.8+% marks in his ACR. Thus, his seniors have awarded him more than 77% marks in ACR every year during five years residency period. The qualifying marks for the residency period are 60%. Thus, if the scientist secures 60% marks in the Assessment Board he has to be declared ‘Fit For Promotion’ by the assessment board. Since there was no interview therefore for fixed information work when department has awarded more than 77% average marks to the petitioner how can the Assessment board award not even 60% to the petitioner required for being declared ‘Fit for Promotion’ by the Assessment Board, 1998.
12. The relevant portion of office letter No. DOP/06/60034/NKJ/AB dated 21.10.2011 (copy enclosed) is given below:
“The duly constituted Review Assessment Board under the Chairmanship of Chairman, RAC assessed Shri Nishit Kumar Jain, Scientist 'E', ISSA and recommended him as "Not Yet Fit" for promotion from Scientist 'C' to the grade of Scientist 'D' for the year 1998.....”
13. Thus, the Review Assessment Board, 1998 has declared him ‘Not yet fit’ on an arbitrary and totally untenable approach with ulterior motives and violates principle of natural justice.
14. Promotions in petitioner’s department are governed by Flexible complementary System (FCS). Thus, a scientist who has obtained marks in his Annual Confidential Report as prescribed by the rule is directed to appear for an Interview before the Assessment Board. The Assessment board gives its recommendation for the promotion of the scientist as per DRDS rule 8(2)(1)(d)(d) as amended vide SRO 34 dated 8.3.96 given below:
“(d) The Assessment Board for promotion upto the level of Scientist ‘F’ shall submit its recommendations as ‘Fit for Promotion’ or ‘Not yet Fit’ or fitness shall be deferred by one year. If the overall merit calibre of the candidate as judged by the Assessment Board matches with the qualifying marks required for his residency period, the candidate should be recommended as ‘Fit for Promotion’ otherwise, the recommendation would be “Not Yet Fit” or fitness shall be deferred by one year.
Thus, there is no comparison of fitness among scientist for recommending him for promotion. When the fitness is deferred by the Assessment Board the Scientist is given promotion from the subsequent year without having to appear again before the Assessment Board.
The qualifying marks for the residency period are 60%. Thus, if the scientist secures 60% marks in the Assessment Board he has to be declared ‘Fit For Promotion’ by the assessment board.
15. While dictating the judgement direction was issued to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner by holding Review DPC and if found suitable for promotion, the petitioner be accorded promotion to the post of Scientist ‘D’ with effect from the date his juniors were promoted on the basis of Internal Screening Committee which was held on 1st July, 1998. Thus, it was understood from the direction that the hon’ble Justice has waived the Interview assessment and therefore he has directed for payment of arrears w.e.f. 1.7.98 on the repromoted post. However the department directed the petitioner to appear before the DRDS Review Assessment Interview for the year 1998. As apprehended and intimated to the department vide his representation dated 8th and 19th Sept, 2011 he has been declared ‘Not Yet Fit’ as happens in such cases where the department is annoyed for filing a case in court and gets an opportunity to declare the petitioner as ‘Not Yet Fit’ in the interview and thus nullify the judgement of the court.
16 Many times due to error committed by the government the promotion has not been given to the employees. When the error was brought to the notice of the court and it recommends the correction, the case of the employee for promotion is reviewed. In the case where department follows the procedure of promotion through DPC where the decision of promotion is based on the entries in ACR only which has already been written then the department has no arbitrary information which has to be assessed and the candidates are promoted with retrospective effect and thus the judgments are honoured in words and spirit.
17. In department where FCS (Flexible Complementary Scheme) system is followed for promotion like our department the promotion is recommended by Assessment Board after appearing for interview assessment. The role of ACR is limited and to see if the candidate fulfil the minimum requirement of marks in his ACR to become eligible for appearing before the Assessment Board for interview assessment. In such cases even if the court corrects the error and directs the department to reconsider the case of the employee for promotion with retrospective date the employee is again in the mercy of the department for assessment interview. The department against whom the employee has filed a case will obviously declare him ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion in the interview assessment for filing a case in court and going against the department. Thus in cases where the promotion is based on FCS system the judgement becomes nullified as the promotion is to be granted by the department after holding Review Interview Assessment Board. This is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Article 14 and 16 of the constitution as in FCS system even if the judgement is in favour of the employee he cannot get the promotion whereas in DPC system of promotion if the judgement is in favour of the employee he gets relief and the promotion is granted by retrospective date even by the court itself as all the information which has to be assessed in ACR is fixed.
18. The petitioner made representation to the department vide his letter dated 24th October, 2011 requesting for compliance of the judgement and again on 8th November 2011 representing against their order No DOP/06/60034/NKJ/AB dated 21st Oct, 2011 declaring him ‘Not yet fit’ for promotion inspite of their letter informing him that there will be no interview/assessment by the Review assessment board for interview, 1998.
19. The department vide their letter No. DOP/06/60034/NKJ/AB dated 24th Nov., 2011 stated that the functions of DPC in DRDO for promotions of Scientists in the grades of Scientist ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ are being carried out by the Assessment Boards, constituted in accordance with DRDS Rules 1979 as amended from time to time. That petitioner has earned all his promotions upto the Sc. ‘E’ under the provisions of DRDS Rules only. It is, therefore, but natural that review of his promotion from Sc. ‘C’ to ‘D’ w.e.f. 01 July, 1998 as directed by Hon’ble High Court was to be considered by the Review Assessment Board, constituted as per the ibid rules. The petitioner was therefore, asked to brief the Review Assessment Board regarding his work report for the period from 1993 to 1997 and not to appear for interview/assessment. Accordingly, the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Sc. ‘D’ for the year 1998 on 27th Sept, 2011 by the Review Assessment Board and was recommended ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion to the grade of Sc. ‘D’.
20. Thus, the Review Assessment Board, 1998 has declared the petitioner as ‘Not Yet Fit’ on the briefing of the work report by the petitioner without appearing for interview/assessment. Thus, the department had waived the interview/assessment for the petitioner. As the petitioner was declared ‘Not Yet Fit’ by the Assessment Board this shows that the Review Assessment Board, 1998 has awarded the petitioner less than 60% marks in the Review Assessment Board, 1998 after the briefing of his work report for which the department in appraising his appraisal reports has awarded him more than 77+ % of marks every year during the five years residency period. This is a significant difference in marks awarded by two committees on the same work report which has reviewed the work report of the petitioner and this clearly shows there is some error somewhere.
21. Grounds
1. Because the promotion was denied to the petitioner because of the mistake of the administration and due to no fault of the petitioner, therefore the authorities should waive the process of assessment interview and pay the arrears of salary etc., upon giving him the benefit of retrospective promotion after realising that mistake from the date his juniors had been so promoted.
2. Because the department directed the petitioner before the Review Assessment Board, 1998 for reconsideration of his case for promotion w.e.f. 1.7.98 in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already received two promotions and is working as Scientist ‘E’ this shows that the department has interpreted the judgement given in Para 8 as if the court has desired that the Petitioner has to be reassessed for the year 1998 for consideration of his case for promotion to the grade of Sc. ‘D’ w.e.f 1998.
3. Because para 8 & 9 of the judgment can also be interpreted quite contradictory to each other. So, none else other then the competent court can rectify the mistake to make the concerned department work accordingly. Therefore there is no alternative relief and we are forced to approach the competent court to get the error of the judgment rectified.
4 Because in fact, the contents of para 9 can also be interpreted as useless in the wake of direction given to the respondent in para 8 of the judgment therefore we have to approach the competent court to get the lacuna of judgment rectified.
5. Because there is no reason why the petitioner who has knocked the door of the court should be deprived of the benefit of the judgement.
6. Because there is no reason why the department should be allowed to nullify the effect of the judgement by failing the petitioner in the interview and thus the justice has been deprived to him.
Prayer
. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that you may be graciously pleased to issue an appropriate order or orders and allow the claim and give suitable clarification of the Judgement dated 7.7.2011 and issue direction for staying the impugned order No. DOP/06/60034/NKJ/AB dated 21.10.2011 and issue necessary orders to waive the assessment by the interview assessment board and honour the interview result of the earlier Assessment Board, 2001 for consideration of petitioner’s case for promotion from Sc. 'C' to the grade of Sc. ‘D’ for the year 1998 and honour the interview result of Assessment Board, 2007 for consideration of his case for promotion from Sc. ‘D’ to Sc. 'E’ for the year 2001 and shall also be entitled to consequential benefits of seniority and promotion etc., from the date his juniors had been so promoted as also mentioned in the judgement of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court and issue necessary orders for immediate compliance of the judgement and pass any other order or orders which are deemed necessary in the interest of justice and equity.
As I was not directed to appear before the assessment board, 1998 I had filed an OA No. 102/99 before the Principle Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, (CAT) in the month of January, 1999. Subsequently, in the month of April 1999 I had appeared before the Assessment Board, 1999 for promotion from Sc. ‘C’ to the grade of Sc. ‘D’ after completing six years service in the grade of Sc. ‘C’. As the case was filed only few months before interview the department was not happy and the Assessment Board declared me as ‘Not Yet Fit’ for promotion. The effect of filing a case has resulted in declaring me as ‘Not Yet Fit’ by the assessment board. Therefore apprehending the same result I did not appear in the Assessment Board, 2000 as the judgement from CAT was expected and was pronounced on 1st May, 2000. Unfortunately, the judgement of the CAT went against me.
Therefore I appealed against the judgement of the CAT through this court vide my petition number WP(C) 4545 /2000.
In the year 2001 I appeared before the Assessment Board, 2001 as my petition before the High Court was admitted and DB Rule was issued. As it will take long time I appeared before the Assessment Board, 2001 and was declared “Fit for Promotion”.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 10 December 2011
sir
sorry for disturbing you again.
today I met a new advocate
He said that the department has wrongly implemented the judgment. As per para 9 of the judgment they should have promoted me w.e.f. 1998 without taking interview and by honouring my result of the promotion in the year 2001. He recommended that i should file contempt of court case.
He did not adviced for filing petition for seeking clarifaication of judgment as it will not be helpful.
pl. give your opinion what should I do.
Guest
(Expert) 10 December 2011
Better take a guarantee from the said advocate to get some clear order from the court to ratify his interpretation to be correct to be implemented w.e.f. 1998. The department would abide by the decision of a judge rather than interpretation of an advocate.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 25 December 2011
sir
I Had obtained average 78% marks in last five years ACR. I needed 60% marks by the Assessment Board for being declared "fit for promotion".
In manjurani roatare vs. National information centre (WP No. 7080/2005 orissa high court has held that
"Promotion under flexible complementary scheme should be done by considering marks both in ACR and Assessment Board"
I could not find any challange of this judgement in supreme court.
In several cases inclluding IARI case supreme court has held that marks for interview cannot be more than 15% of marks in ACR.
I have obtained 78% marks in ACR. If out of 15 (max. 15% marks for interview)marks for interview even if I get zero marks in interview my total marks in ACR and interview will be
(78+0)/115.
I will now need 69 marks for being declared fit for assessment.
so deparment should direct me for promotion for the year 1998.
can I take up this point while filing contempt.
