With the consent of parties matter is finally heard.

1. The petitioner in this petition has assailed the order dated 22.1.2014 passed by the Engineer-inchief, Rural Engineering Services by Annexure P-1 wherein the representation of petitioner in pursuance to the order passed in Writ Petition No.7724/2013 has been rejected. Through the said representation, petitioner has sought promotion from the post of Sub-Engineer to the post of Assistant Engineer in respondent No.1 department.

2. As per the submission of petitioner, he was appointed as Sub-Engineer in Rural Engineering Services Department on 9.1.1983. Further submission of the petitioner is that his name was reflected at serial No.355 in the gradation list issued by the department as on 1.4.2014. As per the fit list issued by the Development Commissioner on 5.2.2012, petitioner was at serial No.120 and was fit for consideration for promotion. On 29.8.2013 the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened but did not consider the case of petitioner and found him unfit for promotion because of not fulfilling the criterion/benchmark prescribed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). On 3.10.2013 promotion list has been issued by the department, ignoring the claim of the petitioner for promotion and junior officers to the petitioner have been promoted. Being aggrieved by such non consideration, the petitioner preferred a writ petition vide No.7724/2013 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner for promotion vide order dated 28.10.2013. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 5.11.2013 which in turn got rejected by the impugned order dated 22.1.2014 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner has attached copy of his ACRs from 2007-08 to 2011-12 vide Annexure P-9 collectively obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which were before DPC for consideration.

3. Perusal of ACR pertaining to 2007-08 reflects that his reporting officer (SDO, Rural Engineering Services) has given him excellent (A+) which was approved by the reviewing officer (Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services) but downgraded by the accepting officer (Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services) to category ‘B’ (good). The reason assigned for the said downgrading was less knowledge of English.

4. In the ACR of 2008-09, again the SDO given excellent (A+), approved by the Executive Engineer but downgraded by the same person to ‘A’ (very good). The said downgrading was again made without any cogent reason or explanation.

5. In the ACR of 2009-10, the SDO has given very good (A), approved by the Executive Engineer but the same person who was working as Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, downgraded to ‘B’ for no cogent reason.

6. In the ACR of 2010-11 a peculiar situation has cropped up wherein initially ‘A+’ was given to the petitioner and the said endorsement find place just below ‘A+’ wherein tick mark has been issued over Excellent Category but later on it seems that ‘A+’ has been downgraded to ‘A’ and both the authorities i.e. Executive Engineer as well as Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Services showed their approval. According to petitioner, the said grading was ‘A+’ and still it would be treated as A+ but without any rhyme and reason, the Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer have downgraded it to ‘A’. According to the petitioner, this peculiarity of behaviour cannot be explained by the respondents in any term.

7. In the ACR pertaining to 2011-12, petitioner again performed well and he was given ‘A+’ by the SDO which was approved by the Executive Engineer but again downgraded by the Superintending Engineer to the category ‘B’. The reason assigned for downgrading is again self-contradictory.

8. The main thrust of the arguments of the petitioner is that the said ACRs reflect that the petitioner is a sincere, honest and diligent worker but has been unduly targeted by the a