IMPORTANT POINT
The need for fair and objective consideration of representations in promotion cases, as directed by the court.

JUDGMENT :

This is the second round of litigation resorted to by the petitioner claiming promotion to the next higher post to which the petitioner claims to be entitled to be duly considered for.

2. The petitioner joined in the erstwhile United Bank of India as Probationary Officer in December, 1985. On 27.03.1995, he was promoted from JMG Scale-I to MMG Scale-II. Thereafter, on 05.10.2001, he was again promoted from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III. On 24.12.2009, the petitioner was further promoted to MMG Scale-III to SMG Scale-IV. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to his non-consideration to the next higher grade from SMG Scale-IV to SMG Scale-V. At the relevant point in time, the United Bank of India (presently Punjab National Bank) issued a circular dated 10.05.2012 specifying the eligibility criteria for promotion from Scale-IV to Scale-V. In terms of the said circular, the following criteria was specified:

1. Officers should have completed minimum three years of satisfactory service in Scale-IV which may be relaxed to two years by the competent authority on valid grounds;

2. The candidates must have completed 12 years of service;

3. The candidates will have to pass computer literary test with a minimum of 40% marks;

4. Candidates who have secured minimum 60% marks in APAR in each of the years of service required for eligibility for promotion will be called for group discussion and personal interview.

3. Although the petitioner claims to be eligible for being promoted to the next higher grade, he was not selected for promotion and accordingly, he approached this Court by way of A writ petition praying for writ for setting aside to the impugned circular dated 10.05.2012 as well as setting aside of the selection of the private respondent therein who had promoted from SMG Scale-IV to SMG Scale-V in the erstwhile United Bank of India as it then was. A further prayer was made in the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to promote him to the SMG Scale-V by holding a fresh selection. The said writ petition was numbered as W.P.(C) No. 3362/2012. During the course of the hearing before the writ Court in the earlier round of litigation, it was urged before the Court that the petitioner was not found eligible as he secured 59 marks in his APAR for the year 2010-11 while he secured 95 marks in the APAR for the year 2011-12. As such, the petitioner was not selected as he failed to secure 60% marks in his APARs for both the years under consideration. The learned Co-ordinate Bench upon considering the entire materials before the Court and upon relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725; Sukdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146 that every entry in the ACR of the public servant should be communicated to him within the reasonable period. In so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he is securing 59 marks in the APAR of 2010-11 was never communicated to him. The Co-ordinate Bench held that such non-communication of APAR marks which fell below the benchmark prescribed for securing the eligibility for promotion to the next higher post, ought to have been communicated to the Officer concerned in terms of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725; Sukdev Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566 and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

“25 That being the position and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court, the following directions are hereby issued:

1) entries in the APAR of the petitioner for both the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 be communicated to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified c