Headline: Promotion denial justified if employee's performance is below benchmark and fails to accept subsequent promotions.

The applicant, Abdul Waheed, was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on August 22, 1991, at Navodaya Vidyalaya, Kirtanpur, Bahraich.

He sought promotion to the Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) position from April 29, 1997, arguing that his peers were promoted while he was overlooked, despite his excellent performance.

The respondents contended that PGT is a selection post, and the applicant was not recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in 1997 and 1998 due to his overall grading being below the benchmark of 'Good'.

The applicant was issued several advisory notes and memoranda regarding his performance and failure to reside on campus, which is mandatory for residential Navodaya Vidyalayas, and to participate in school activities.

He was subsequently offered promotion to PGT thrice (June 16, 2003, May 27, 2005, and October 17, 2006) but declined each time, explaining in his rejoinder that he did so because he had been denied promotion since 1997 and accepting would have adversely affected his claim.

The applicant retired as a TGT on May 31, 2016.

Whether the applicant was wrongfully denied promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) from April 29, 1997.

Whether the respondents were justified in denying promotion to the applicant given his performance record and non-acceptance of subsequent promotion offers.

The court considered the criteria for promotion to a selection post, specifically the requirement of meeting a "benchmark" for performance as determined by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

It also assessed the professional responsibilities of teachers in residential schools, including residing on campus and participating in various school activities.

The Tribunal implicitly applied principles related to evaluating employee performance based on official memoranda and advisories.

The court analyzed the applicant's claim for promotion against the respondents' justification for denial.

It found that the applicant's overall grading was below the 'Good' benchmark required for PGT promotion in 1997 and 1998.

The court referred to several memoranda issued to the applicant from October 1997 onwards, which indicated deficiencies in his discharge of responsibilities, particularly his failure to reside on campus and participate in school activities, which are crucial in a residential school setting.

The argument that denial of promotion in 1996-97 was unfounded was dismissed, as the applicant's deficient performance, including not staying on campus, was noted from 1991.

The court further noted that the applicant declined promotion thrice between 2003 and 2006, and his stated reason for declining appeared to be an afterthought as no document supporting this reasoning was placed on record.

The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit.