1999 Supreme(Raj) 1104
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
S.S. Rajvi - Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2481 of 1997.
Decided On : 23-04-1999
Government instructions and circulars regarding the assessment and evaluation of APARs are binding on the authorities and must be followed. Any violation of these instructions or discrimination in the promotion process based on APARs can be challenged through legal remedies.
Headnote:
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - SERVICE MATTERS - PROMOTION - ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORTS (APARS) - EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT - INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY STATE OF RAJASTHAN - VIOLATION OF INSTRUCTIONS - DISCRIMINATION - REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND - DIRECTIONS TO RECONSIDER REPRESENTATIONS AND REASSESS APARS - RESTORATION OF BENEFITS IF ELIGIBLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Services (RAS), challenged the evaluation of his APARs for various years, alleging violations of instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan and discrimination. He claimed that his APARs were not recorded in accordance with the instructions, resulting in lower ratings and affecting his promotion prospects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's grievance was genuine and that the respondents had violated the instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan for assessing and evaluating APARs. The court also found that the petitioner had been discriminated against as his juniors were promoted despite having lower APAR ratings.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents had violated the instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan for assessing and evaluating APARs? 2. Whether the petitioner had been discriminated against in the promotion process due to the alleged violations?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents had violated the instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan for assessing and evaluating APARs. The court also held that the petitioner had been discriminated against as his juniors were promoted despite having lower APAR ratings. The court relied on the instructions issued by the State of Rajasthan and the judgment in Prem Prakash Bidyasar v. State of Rajasthan, which held that the beneficial report in favor of an officer should be considered for the entire year.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's representations and reassess his APARs in accordance with the guidelines provided in various circulars and the law laid down in Parmar's case. The court also directed that if the APARs were reassessed to the benefit of the petitioner, he should be considered for restoration of any promotion that might have been denied to him because of the said assessment.
JUDGMENT
1. - The petitioner is a member of Rajasthan Administrative Services (hereinafter to be referred as "RAS") of 1974 batch, having been so appointed in June, 1975.
2. It is stated that the petitioner was promoted to Senior Scale in the year 1979 and in Selection Scale in the year 1988 and was assigned the year 1988-89 for the promotion to Selection Scale on merit basis. The promotion from RAS to Indian Administrative Services (herein after to be referred as "IAS") are effected solely on the basis of service record of Annual Performance Appraisal Report (for short "APAR") of the officers. Certain instructions have been issued by State of Rajasthan for assessing or evaluation and for recording APARs, which have been reproduced in the writ petition. It is stated that for recording the missing APARs, the conduct of officer is to be assessed on the reports of preceding and succeeding years and after more than 2 years no attempt should be made to prepare a report of the officer.
3. It is the grievance of petitioner that in total violation of instructions in regard to submission of APARs, the petitioner has been ignored, whereas two officers junior to petitioner i.e. Mr. J.N. Modi and Mr. K.S. Rathore were promoted to the post of IAS in the year 1993 and two other junior persons to petitioner have been promoted in the year 1995, even though the petitioner's performance had been outstanding.
4. It is submitted that for the year 1985-86, the petitioner had more than one reporting officer, and therefore, the report which was more beneficial to petitioner should have been considered as a report for the entire year in view of the decision of this court in Civil Writ Petition 1634/94 Prem Prakash Bidyasar Vs. State of Rajasthan.
5. It is submitted that for the year 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92 no efforts were made by respondents to get the report filled in by other reporting officer and the reports of one reporting Officer was considered a as final report and submits that this was in violation of para No. 6 of Part II of Instructions issued on 30.3.76.
6. It is submitted that according to Circular dated 5.1.66, apart from the fact that if it is more than 2 years, the blank APAR will have to be considered the APAR of preceding and succeeding years. That is for the year 1988-89 (from 19.12.88 to 31.3.89) when the petitioner was working as Chief Executive Officer and Secretary Zila Parishasd Ganganagar, his work was to be evaluated on the basis of report of the year 1986-87 (as the report of 1987-88 is blank) and for remaining years in question 1989-90 and 1992-93, the petitioner had two Reporting Officers, but the report of one Reporting Officer was only obtained by the Government. Therefore, the reports of these years will have to be treated as blank as far as report of other Reporting Officers are concerned, and if the instructions are applied and the reports are considered in accordance with the instructions, the APARs for the year 1986-87 and 1989-90 will have to be assessed as outstanding and similar would be the effect for the year 1990-91, 1991-92. It has also been alleged that for the year 1988-89 the officer who was Accepting Officer had written report as Reviewing Officer which he was not entitled to write.
7. The reports of the year 1988-89, 1990-91, which were reported as outstanding have been illegally toned down by Reviewing Officer/Accepting Officer, without there being any reason and without giving any reason in violation of instruction given on 1.5 of 30.3.76.
8. It is further submitted that the reports for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 should have been outstanding instead of very good as same officer had given outstanding for the year 1990-91 and there was no reason as to why the petitioner should not be given outstanding report of subsequent year. It is stated that number of representations were submitted by the petitioner but no action was taken. Therefore, ultimately the petitioner had to file a writ petition No. 894/96, wh
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
