Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Sheo Balak Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2218 of 2013
Decided On : 12-08-2015
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14 - Seeks promotion to the next higher rank of Chief Engineer - Seeks quashing of the ACRs - Petitioner is that he has been given gradings below benchmark relevant Annual Confidential Reports which were communicated to him belatedly - Representation submitted by petitioner was also disposed of very belatedly by a non-speaking order - Petitioner was not considered for promotion and instead his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 10 have been promoted - Writ petition - Petitioner also seeks quashing of orders issued by respondent No. 4 rejecting his representations seeking upgradation of his ACRs - Further prayer made is to direct respondents to consider his case for promotion to rank of Chief Engineer by considering gradings of ACRs for aforesaid period as - Periods as well as for last period, Initiating Officer had graded the petitioner and for 4th and 5th period he had graded petitioner - At level of Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer gradings of for periods under consideration were retained - But against gradings of good" given by Initiating Officer for 4th and 5th period under consideration, same was downgraded at level of Reviewing Officer to which has been maintained - Petitioner has furnished a statement of writ petition indicating of communication of ACR gradings and dates of his representations - Vide office memorandum issued by Border Roads Development Board - Ministry of Road Transport & Highways petitioner was informed that his representation against ACRs for periods were considered but nothing exemplary was found during said period – Held, Court had noted in Union of India reported 1 SCC that DPC while judging suitability of a candidate for promotion may not confine its assessment and follow ACR gradings only - DPC may grade officer as per its own assessment and not blindly follow gradings in the ACRs - Position has been further noted in subsequent decision of Apex Court by clarifying Selection Committee can make its own assessment of a candidate independent of gradings in ACRs - Court reported in SCC - Court is of that matter is required to be remanded back for fresh consideration of case of petitioner for promotion to Chief Engineer by holding review DPC - Petitioners case is required to be considered when his juniors were promoted to rank of Chief Engineer - Gradings given in above ACRs shall not be taken into account by review DPC may independently assess suitability of petitioner consistently with observations made above and in accordance with law - Let fresh exercise be carried out within a period of 3 months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and whatever be outcome of the said exercise, same should be communicated to petitioner - Clear that if petitioners claim is upheld by review DPC, he would be entitled to consequential benefits - Impugned orders are quashed - Gradings recorded in above ACRs shall also accordingly be expunged - Petition is allowed
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents.
2. Case was heard on 04.08.2015 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment.
3. Petitioner is serving as Superintending Engineer in the Border Roads Organization. He seeks promotion to the next higher rank of Chief Engineer.
4. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been given gradings below the benchmark of "very good" i.e., "good" in the relevant Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) which were communicated to him belatedly. Representation submitted by the petitioner was also disposed of very belatedly by a non-speaking order. Consequently, petitioner was not considered for promotion and instead his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 10 have been promoted. Hence, the writ petition.
5. In the instant proceeding, petitioner seeks quashing of the ACRs for the following periods:-
(a) 01.04.2001 to 23.07.2001,
(b) 01.04.2002 to 12.12.2002,
(c) 01.04.2003 to 12.12.2003,
(d) 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006,
(e) 01.04.2006 to 14.01.2007, and
(f) 01.04.2007 to 16.01.2008.
Petitioner also seeks quashing of the orders dated 27.09.2010 and 13.06.2012 issued by respondent No. 4 rejecting his representations seeking upgradation of his ACRs. Further prayer made is to direct the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Chief Engineer by considering the gradings of the ACRs for the aforesaid period as "very good".
6. For the first three periods as well as for the last period, the Initiating Officer had graded the petitioner as "good" and for the 4th and 5th period he had graded the petitioner as "very good". At the level of the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer the gradings of "good" for the periods under consideration were retained. But against the gradings of "very good" given by the Initiating Officer for the 4th and 5th period under consideration, the same was downgraded at the level of Reviewing Officer to "good" which has been maintained.
7. Petitioner has furnished a statement in paragraph 22 of the writ petition indicating the dates of communication of the ACR gradings and the dates of his representations, which is extracted hereunder:-
Period of ACRs
Date on which communicated to the petitioner
Date of representation
Remarks
01.04.2001 to 23.07.2001
16.11.2011
28.11.2011
Communicated to the petitioner after 10 years
01.04.2002 to 12.12.2002
16.08.2010
31.08.2010
After 8 years
01.04.2003 to 12.12.2003
16.08.2010
31.08.2010
After 7 years
01.04.2005 to 31.03.2006
16.08.2010
31.08.2010
After 6 years
01.04.2006 to 14.01.2007
16.08.2010
31.08.2010
After 3 years
01.04.2007 to 16.01.2008
16.11.2011
28.11.2011
After 3 years
8. Vide office memorandum (OM) dated 27.09.2010 issued by the Border Roads Development Board (Board), Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Govt. of India, petitioner was informed that his representation against the ACRs for the 2nd to 5th periods were considered but nothing exemplary was found during the said period; hence the representations were rejected by the competent authority. By the order dated 13.06.2012, representations of the petitioner against ACR gradings for the 1st and 6th periods were rejected by the competent authority though for the subsequent period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, grading of the petitioner was upgraded from "average" to "very good". An adverse remark recorded in the ACR for subsequent period was also expunged.
9. Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India had issued OM dated 06.01.2010 wherein the DOPT had clarified that in those cases where the authorities had upgraded/downgraded the overall grading without giving sufficient reasons, the Departmental Promotion Committe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
