IMPORTANT POINT
Non-communication of performance remarks in ACRs violates natural justice and can adversely affect promotion eligibility, necessitating expungement of such remarks.

ORDER :

(Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. Shakti Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for learned advocate Mr. S. P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.4 and Ms. Nidhi Vyas, learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The petitioner by way of present petition seeks to challenge the unjustified and arbitrary action of the respondent – authorities in not communicating the remark of “good” for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of the petitioner. The benchmark for promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, is "very good" or "outstanding" remark in the ACR in five years out of last eight years. Under the aforesaid circumstances the non- communication of remark "good" to the petitioner for the abovementioned years in question is fatal and such an action is in fact contrary to the position of law. Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held in March 2011 and the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid remark of "good" in the abovementioned years after making an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that non communication of aforesaid remarks “good” has affected the petitioner adversely and therefore, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court with following prayers;

“(21) (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside grading/remark of the petitioner made by the concerned authority respondent Annual in Confidential Report (ACR) for the year for the remark of "good" for the years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 and further be pleased to direct respondent authorities the to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Registrar and further be pleased to hold that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar cannot be withheld on account of entries of "good" for the years in question, which have not been communicated to the petitioner.

(A1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus appropriate writ. directions any order directing other the respondent authorities to give deemed date promotion to the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, w.e.f. 29.03.2011 (when Departmental Promotion Committee met for promotion) w.e.f. consideration of alternatively with all/ and 23.10.2015 consequential benefits arrears of pay and also further be pleased to quash and set aside decision dated 03.08.2015;

(2A) I state Government Gandhinagar that of has the state Gujarat issued a Government resolution dated 14- 06-2016, copy whereof are annexed hereto marked as ANNEXURE-H I state that even as per said Government resolution the petitioner is entitled to promotion because the so called issued charge sheet is before of six years, but thereof decision thereof.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal petition, of Your Lordships may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from promoting any person junior to the petitioner on the post of Joint Registrar, without first considering the case of the petitioner for such promotion and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to consider the remark of "good" for the years 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, 2005- 2006 and 2008-2009 for effecting further promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar;

(C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. Mr. Jadeja, learned advocate submits that the petitioner herein was required tobe communicated the remarks for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 because in view of the said remarks “good” the petitioner is m