JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by his non-promotion to Scale III cadre of respondent in the Supplementary Promotion Exercise of the year 2008-09 and Promotion Exercise (PE) of the year 2009-2010, which as per petitioner was on account of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), which were not communicated to him. The present petition having been filed in the year 2009, in the interregnum petitioner was promoted and is currently working in Scale V. However, it is the case of petitioner that due to non-grant of promotion to petitioner in the PE of the year 2008-09 and 2009-10, petitioner has consistently served at a lower cadre than other officers who were previously junior to him in the zone of consideration in the PE of the year 2008-09. Thus, petitioner is seeking promotion to Scale VI in parity with his juniors who were promoted in the promotion exercise of the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Petitioner is further seeking for directions to respondent for consideration of his case for promotion to Scale VII cadre.

2. Petitioner joined the service of respondent in the year 1991 at senior level officer grade on Scale I after passing the entrance test and the Written Examination as conducted by the General Insurance Corporation of India. Subsequently, he was promoted to Scale II as Assistant Manager.

3. Petitioner was served with a memo dated 06.07.2006 alleging that petitioner refused to attend the hearing before the office of Ombudsman in Delhi scheduled on 06.07.2006. Petitioner replied to the same stating that he was not informed about the purpose for which the hearing was fixed or the details needed for preparing for such hearing. Nothing further was intimated to petitioner qua the said memo.

4. Petitioner appeared for Promotion Exercise in the two years i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 to seek promotion from Scale II cadre to Scale III cadre. However, he was denied promotion, despite being declared successful in the Written Examination.

5. Thus, the present writ petition came to be filed. As per the case canvassed on behalf of petitioner, the present petition was filed on the premise that petitioner had scored well in all the four parameters prescribed under the Promotion Policy viz Work Record, Written Examination, Seniority and Insurance Qualifications. Petitioner was aware of the marks allotted to him under the parameters of the Written Examination, Seniority and Insurance Qualifications. Hence, the present petition was filed with a supposition that petitioner had scored well in the ACR, as petitioner had not received any communication with respect to any adverse entry in his ACRs.

6. However, during pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner procured the ACRs under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The same contained adverse remarks against petitioner. Thus, petitioner raised the plea of non-communication of adverse remarks in the ACRs before this Court.

7. On behalf of petitioner, it is contended that for Promotion Exercise of the year 2008-09, ACRs of the preceding three years were considered viz 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Similarly, for the Promotion Exercise of the year 2009-10, the relevant ACRs of the preceding three years were 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09.

8. It is submitted that through letter dated 17.01.2017 received from respondent under the RTI Act, petitioner was informed that his ACRs for the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 could not be traced and were missing. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that this is totally arbitrary as the said ACRs were the sole source of allotting marks under the Work Record parameter. Since the ACR of the year 2005-06 was to be considered for the promotion exercise of the year 2008-09, the marks allotted to petitioner under the said parameter were incorrect, since the said ACR was missing. Moreover, petitioner was never informed of the missing ACRs, prior to receiving the letter dated 17.01.2017 under RTI Act.

9. It is furt