Adverse ACR entries must be substantiated by evidence and cannot be made out of malice or bias; eligible candidates have a right to be considered for promotion.

ORDER

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:

(i) The impugned order (Annexure A-1) and adverse entries in ACRs of the applicant from 1.11.2014 to 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 to 10.05.2016 may be quashed.

(ii) The ACRs of the applicant from 1.11.2014 to 31.3.2015 and 1.4.2015 to 31.3.2016 may kindly be treated at par with the ACRs of the previous years.

(iii) The respondent may be directed that in future, the ACRs of the applicant may be written only on the basis of Memorandum of Service only.

(iv) The respondents may be directed to maintain mandatory Memorandum of Service as per Annexure A-36

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed under the respondents department as Steno-Typist on 06.01.1983. She was promoted as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 29.03.1990, and as Superintendent Grade-I, on the only one sanctioned post since 22^nd August, 2003. Thereafter, since 01.06.2013 till 29.01.2015, she shouldered the duties and responsibilities of the promotional post of Administrative Officer. She is also having all above bench mark ACRs, and meets the criteria for further promotion. She has now retired on 30.11.2024.

3. The Chandigarh Administration, Department of Urban Planning (Group ’B’) Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 2003, (A-3 with P-1), provides recruitment to the post of Administrative Officer by Deputation/Promotion. The respondents vide circular dated 27.09.2012, 07.06.2013 and 23.01.2014 (Annexure A-5, A-6 and A-8 respectively) invited applications for filling up the post of Administrative Officer and the applicant applied every time in pursuance thereto vide applications dated 26.10.2012, 26.06.2013 (Annexure A-7) and 22.05.2014 (Annexure A-9), but she was ignored every time. Again, the respondents vide circular dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure A-2) invited the panel of eligible officers/officials for filling up a post of Administrative Officer by deputation/promotion, which fell vacant on 01.06.2013 and pursuant thereto, the applicant submitted her application dated 25.08.2014 (Annexure A-3). However, her candidature has not been considered and Sh. Prem Chand (private respondent No. 3), who is working in Sports Department, Chandigarh, has been appointed on deputation basis, vide order dated 21.01.2015.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant filed the OA No. 60/78/2015 before this Tribunal, challenging the action of the respondents in appointment of respondent no. 3, ignoring her claim and the said O.A. was allowed vide order dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure A-18) while declaring the appointment of Sh. Prem Chand (respondent No. 3 herein) on deputation against the post of Administrative Officer in the respondent department as illegal and consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer vis-à-vis other eligible candidates in terms of Rules, 2003. The respondents challenged the order dated 15.12.2015 before the Hon‟ble High Court by way of CWP No. 12465/2016 wherein no interim stay has been granted. The respondent no. 3 was reverted back to his parent department in September, 2016 about ten months after the order of this Tribunal.

5. The applicant further submitted that after the Order of this Tribunal dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure A-18), with mala fide intentions the respondents No. 3 and 4 have made the adverse entries in her Annual Confidential Reports for the period from 01.11.2014 to 31.03.2015 written by the respondent No.4 and 01.04.2015 to 06.01.2016 (instead of 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016) written by Respondent No.3 and reviewed by Respondent No.4 while the Applicant submitted herself-appraisal for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. In the ACRs from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016 the Reporting Officer is Respondent No.3, who had joined the respondent Department on deputation as Administrative Officer and