Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
M.D. Parmar – Appellant
Vs.
Director Employment & Training and Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 5190 of 1994, 2938 of 1995 and 11945 of 2003
Decided On : 22-06-2016
For the Appellant :D.P. Vora, Ravi R. Tripathi and G.M. Joshi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Swapneshwar Goutam, AGP
The importance of fair consideration of adverse remarks in the promotion process and the need for the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion.
Headnote:
Adverse Remarks - Promotion Dispute - [Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 12, Section 13, Section 14, Section 15, Section 16, Section 17, Section 18] - The court discussed the importance of confidential reports in an employee's service career and emphasized the need for fair consideration of adverse remarks in the promotion process. The court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion, highlighting the vagueness of adverse remarks and the need to consider the petitioner's explanation for the adverse remarks communicated for a specific period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Principal, Class - I, was dissatisfied with the State Government's handling of his claim for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Training). The petitioner challenged adverse remarks in his confidential reports and the rejection of his representations for promotion. The court found that the petitioner had not been dealt with in accordance with the law regarding his promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion, emphasizing the vagueness of adverse remarks and the need to consider the petitioner's explanation for the adverse remarks communicated for a specific period. The court highlighted the State Government's failure to provide a proper reply to the petitioner's averments and expressed disappointment with the delay in filing an affidavit-in-reply.
Issues: Dispute over promotion due to adverse remarks in confidential reports, rejection of representations for promotion, and lack of proper consideration by the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair consideration of adverse remarks in the promotion process and directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion, highlighting the vagueness of adverse remarks and the need to consider the petitioner's explanation for the adverse remarks communicated for a specific period.
Final Decision: The court directed the State Government to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion and dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of the order. The court also allowed the petitioner to avail of an appropriate legal remedy if dissatisfied with the fresh decision of the State Government.
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. Since the issues raised, in all the captioned writ applications, are interrelated, those were heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The writ applicant before me is a retired Principal, Class - I. He is dissatisfied with the manner in which the State Government dealt with him so far as his claim for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director (Training) is concerned.
3. Few facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these three matters may be summarized as under:
3.1. The petitioner was initially working as a Teacher. He applied for the post of the Principal (Class - I) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. He was selected by the Commission and was appointed as the Principal (Class - I) of the Industrial Training Institute. He was posted at the I.T.I., Visnagar. He was served with a communication dated 20th June 1990 informing him of some adverse remarks made in his Confidential Report for the financial year 1989-1990. The adverse remark was as under:
| 1. | Do you accept the assessment by the Reporting Officer in all respect ? If not, indicate the item on which you disagree and give your assessment on those items | Yes partly, he was warned for proper handling of examination work. |
4. The petitioner preferred a detailed representation in that regard on 30th July 1990, and by communication dated 19th August 1992, the words "Yes, partly" were retained, whereas, the words "he was warned for proper handling of the examination work" were deleted.
5. The petitioner, by communication dated 24th September 1992, expressed his inability to understand the meaning of the words "Yes, partly", and contended that the remarks were vague and would mar his chances for promotion.
6. On 17th October 1992, he was informed that the decision was taken by the State Government, and there was no scope of any review. On 29th June 1992, he was conveyed the adverse remarks as under:
| 1. | Whether you are agreeable to the self-assessment made by the officer in Part-2 in respect to his performance ? If no, give reasons for the same | His contribution is not observed in establishing the institute at Sami. No any action appears to have been taken for the Institute of Pilvai. |
| 2. | Whether the authority given to him has properly exercised or he has attitude of returning the cases for guidance ? | Delaying in implementation of the duties assigned by the head office. Lacks in accuracy in the disposal |
7. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 1st August 1992 and offered his explanation in that regard.
8. The above led to filing of the Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994. The following order was passed on 17th December 1994:
"If the petitioner's turn for promotion is repined and if his case is not considered for promotion only on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Report which are challenged in this petition, the petitioner's case may be considered for promotion ignoring such adverse remarks for the time being, but he may not be given actual promotion till this petition is head and finally disposed of"
9. The Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995 relates to the Confidential Report for the period between 1st April 1992 and 28th February 1993 communicated on 31st July 1993. The adverse remarks are as under:
| 1 | Initiative, understanding & readiness to shoulder the responsibility | Attitude to put off the responsibility on others |
| 2. | Whether the authority assigned has been properly used or otherwise or he has attitude of returning the cases for guidance ? | Does not utilise the authority properly |
| 3. | Whether there is qualitative reporting and assessment of the work of persons working under him has been made correctly and in a just manner? | |
