IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19012-2016 Date of Decision : 12.12.2025 ARVINDER SINGH BAKSHI .....Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. R.S.Bains, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate and Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

KULDEEP TIWARI . J.(Oral)

1. The petitioner, who has since retired upon attaining the age of superannuation, has instituted the present writ petition assailing the noting dated 22.03.2016 issued by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as “D.P.C.”), whereby, his request to consider his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (hereinafter, referred to as ‘APAR’) for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 as null and void, in terms of the apposite government instructions, was rejected without assigning any cogent reasons. The petitioner further prays for issuance of directions to the respondent(s) to grant him promotion to the post of Chief Engineer by considering his APAR (supra) as null and void.

2. Before proceeding to adjudicate upon the legality of the impugned noting, and render a decision in the present writ petition, this Court deems it appropriate to delineate the factual background qua which there is no wrangle between the contesting litigants.

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) in the Department of Irrigation, Government of Punjab, in 1980. He was subsequently promoted as Executive Engineer in 2006, and thereafter, as Superintending Engineer in 2012. Further, in the year 2016, the petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer, being the senior-most Superintending Engineer at that time. His case was considered by the D.P.C. in 2018, however, he was not promoted, as he secured 17.75 marks against the prescribed benchmark of 18 marks required for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer.

4. While seeking the relief, as sought through the present writ petition, learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the Punjab Government Instructions dated 24.12.2003, and submits that, had the marks awarded to the petitioner (17.75 marks), been rounded off to 18 marks, i.e. the benchmark prescribed for promotion, the petitioner would have been eligible, and being the senior-most Superintending Engineer, would have been promoted as Chief Engineer. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that, in accordance with the relevant departmental instructions, the petitioner’s APAR for the period 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 ought to have been ignored while assessing his eligibility for promotion. Reliance is placed on instructions dated 15.09.2010, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Punjab, governing the procedure for communication of APAR grading. Paragraph 2(b) of these instructions stipulates that, while commenting on the report of the Reporting Authority, the Reviewing/Accepting Authority must not merely record “agreed,” but must specify with which authority’s assessment, i.e. Reporting or Reviewing, he concurs, and must also record reasons for any upgrading or downgrading. Paragraph 2(b) reads as under:

“2. (b) On the report of Reporting Officer, the Reviewing Officer/Accepting Officer while commenting on a report written of Reporting Officer, will not write (agreed) only, but will make it clear to whom means Reporting Officer or Reviewing Officer, he agrees. They will also record reasons for degrading/upgrading of the report.”

6. Furthermore, reliance is placed on instructions dated 18.06.2001, pertaining to the finalization of cases where grading in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are not recorded in accordance with prescribed norms. These instructions mandate that any such ACR grading not conforming to the applicable procedure shall be ignored, and for the corresponding period, the previous year’