Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Arvind Kumar Nirmal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt Of Social Welfare Lko. And Another – Respondents
Writ A No.6533 of 2024
Decided on : 24-09-2024
(A) U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Government Order dated 27.09.2019 - Promotion - Challenge to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee withholding petitioner's promotion to Chief Engineer (Civil) based on deductions for warnings and a minor penalty - Court found that warnings issued by the Corporation were improperly considered, and the doctrine of washing off applied to the minor penalty - Recommendations quashed, and a fresh consideration ordered. (Paras 31, 32)
(B) Promotion Criteria - The criteria for promotion must adhere to the Government Order stipulations, which require only warnings from the State Government to be considered, and not those from the Corporation. (Paras 10, 25)
(C) Doctrine of Washing Off - The court reaffirmed that adverse entries prior to promotion lose relevance for further promotions, as established in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Lal Jangir. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the withholding of his promotion to Chief Engineer (Civil) despite achieving the required benchmark score, arguing that deductions for warnings from the Corporation were unjustified and that a minor penalty should not affect his eligibility. (Paras 5, 6, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the deductions made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were erroneous and ordered a fresh consideration of the petitioner's promotion without the improper deductions. (Paras 31, 32)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of deductions made for warnings issued by the Corporation and the applicability of the doctrine of washing off concerning the minor penalty. (Paras 16, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that only warnings from the State Government should be considered for promotion, and adverse entries prior to promotion lose their relevance for future promotions. (Paras 25, 27)
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.
1. Heard Mr. J.N. Mathur, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Anupras Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and Mr. N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 3 & 4.
2. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no. 1 is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions submits that petitioner does not wish to file any response thereto.
4. Short counter affidavit by opposite parties no. 3 & 4 has already been filed and replied to. The petition, therefore, is being adjudicated upon finally.
5. Petition has been filed challenging the recommendations/decision of Departmental Promotion Committee dated 05.07.2024 so far as it relates to withholding of recommendation pertaining to petitioner for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) of the U.P. State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) of the Corporation in accordance with Government Order dated 27.09.2019 and for a prohibition to opposite parties for making promotions on the aforesaid post till decision on petitioner's claim has also been sought.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for the purposes of promotion on the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) of the Corporation, a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted to be held on 05.07.2024 and petitioner's name was duly forwarded by the Managing Director on 05.03.2024. It is submitted that the cut off bench marks for consideration of such promotion being 80 marks, petitioner having obtained 80.25, on the basis of his service his name was duly forwarded for consideration thereof.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention to minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit dated 04.09.2024 to submit that petitioner's name was thereafter disregarded on the ground that although he had cleared the bench mark with 80.25 marks but 10 marks therefrom were required to be deducted in view of two warnings which were issued to him earlier as well as the fact that he was visited with a minor penalty vide order dated 21.02.2018. It is submitted that due to aforesaid reasons, petitioner's case has not been considered.
8. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier a warning was issued to petitioner on 28.10.2014 by the Managing Director of the Corporation when he was posted as Assistant Engineer. Subsequently petitioner was promoted on the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) on 21.12.2016 but while working on such post, he was again issued a warning by the Superintending Engineer on 12.09.2017 whereafter he was also visited with the minor penalty dated 21.02.2018.
9. It is further submitted that thereafter a warning was issued to petitioner by the State Government on 05.02.2021 but was subsequently expunged vide order dated 30.01.2024. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner was promoted on the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on 16.12.2021 whereafter vide order dated 12.12.2023, the State Government approved upgradation of service entry in petitioner's service records for the year 2017-2018 from 'good' to 'very good'. Similarly vide order dated 11.01.2024, service entry in records of petitioner for the year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were also upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'.
10. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the Government Order dated 27.09.2019, particularly paragraph 7 (6) thereof to submit that as per directions issued by the State Government, only those warnings which were issued by the State Government are required to be taken into account for purposes of deduction in the bench mark for purposes of promotion and since in the present case, two warnings were issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation, the same were not requ
AI
Promotion criteria must adhere to government orders, considering only state-issued warnings, while prior adverse entries lose relevance post-promotion.
Promotion benchmark of 80 marks requires cumulative computation from character roll entries plus additional factors like capability, merit, technological knowledge per paragraph 7(7) before suitabili....
The court affirmed that promotion must consider merit as the primary criterion, and procedural flaws in disciplinary inquiries can invalidate corresponding punishment orders.
The importance of communicating adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the employee and the impact of such entries on promotion.
Promotion in non-selection posts must adhere to seniority without subjective merit evaluations in the absence of unsuitability, reinforcing equality rights under the Constitution.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the relevance of merit-based promotion, comparative assessment of candidates' qualifications and performance, and the consideration of past perform....
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
