Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1162
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Dinesh Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 21715 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Samarth Sagar, Addl. AG, Haryana; Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent-HPSC;
The central legal principle established is that fairness and transparency in public administration require the communication of ACR entries to the individual within a reasonable period, allowing for representation, even if there is no specific rule or government order mandating it.
Headnote:
ACR Downgrading - Employment Dispute - Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others - 2008 (8) SCC 725
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, seeking promotion to Haryana Civil Services, had his ACRs downgraded without being communicated, resulting in his exclusion from consideration for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the downgrading of the petitioner's ACRs had adversely affected his chance of being selected in Haryana Civil Services, leading to the rejection of his representation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the downgrading of ACRs without communication and its impact on the petitioner's eligibility for promotion constituted a violation of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles established in Dev Dutt v. Union of India and others, emphasizing the importance of communicating ACR entries to the individual and providing an opportunity for representation.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order, directing the correction of ACR entries for the relevant years and allowing the writ petition. The petitioner's claim for retrospective consideration was extinguished, but the restoration of his assessment would benefit him for future selection.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Petition herein, inter-alia, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P13) passed by respondent No.2 whereby representation dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-12) has been rejected, upholding the downgrading of the ACRs of the petitioner for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.
2. Short controversy for adjudication thus is with regard to downgrading of the Annual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to as 'ACRs') of the petitioner, without communicating the same to him.
3. Succinctly put the factual narrative which is not in dispute is that having rendered eight years of service as Naib Tehsildar, the petitioner was promoted as Tehsildar in 2015 and thereafter he is an aspirant for being further promoted/selected in Haryana Civil Services on the basis of having earned 'Very Good' ACRs for six years. Inter-se merit for selection was to be assessed by Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'HPSC') on the basis of marks awarded as per grading in ACRs. This is borne out from the affidavit dated 12.01.2022 on behalf of HPSC filed pursuant to this Court's order dated 06.01.2022. Its relevant part is reproduced herein below :
'3) That in compliance of the said order, it is respectfully submitted before the Hon'ble court that the following criteria was adopted by the commission for assessing the inter-se merit vis-?-vis the selection of candidates to the post of HCS (Ex. Br.) for Register A-1 on the basis of ACRs supported by the Government/department to the answering respondent commission:- Remarks in 'ACR' Marks to be awarded Outstanding 8.75 Very good 7.00 Good 5.00 Satisfactory Nil Bad Nil
The candidates should have at-least 6 ACR of 'Very Good' category and 2 ACRs of not less than 'Good' category during the last eight years'.
4. From perusal of above stand taken in the affidavit filed by the HPSC, it is thus not in dispute that candidates have to be evaluated on the basis of ACRs earned in the past and their different gradations.
The petitioner claims that he had throughout been given 'Very Good' ACRs. However, for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15, his ACRs were downgraded exparte by the competent authority from 'Very Good' to 'Good', without the same being communicated to him. His representation dated 28.02.2020 (Annexure P-12) was declined vide impugned order dated 14.08.2020 (Annexure P-13), which is under challenge through the instant writ proceedings.
5. In the return filed by the respondents, the writ petition has been opposed primarily on the ground that the downgrading of the ACRs is required to be communicated only if there is adverse consequence arising therefrom. In addition, learned State counsel also canvasses that even if there is an adverse consequence, the ACR is not necessarily to be communicated as long as it does not result in lowering the bench mark for being considered to the next level of promotion.
6. Learned State counsel emphatically argues that mere downgrading of the ACR, as long as it does not result in ousting the candidate from the zone of consideration, is not to be construed as adverse and, therefore, vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2020, representation has been rightly rejected. It was in this premise that vide an order dated 06.01.2022, the HPSC was asked to file an affidavit, relevant part of which is reproduced herein above. The purpose was to ascertain: a) whether the downgrading of ACR of the petitioner resulted in any adverse consequence; b) whether the petitioner is ousted from the zone of consideration and/or is adversely affected qua the bench mark adopted by the HPSC for considering him eligible for selection to the next level of promotion?
7. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings.
8. First and foremost, reliance has been placed by all the learned counsels on the Apex Court judgment rendered in 'Dev Dutt v. Union of India and ot
