An 'Adequate' rating in Performance Appraisal Reports (PARs), when explicitly defined by service rules as 'Satisfactory' and not a bar to promotion, cannot be used as a legal ground to deny promotion to an otherwise eligible employee.

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Ch.Satyasadhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. No representation on behalf of the respondent No.5. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondent No.6. Perused the material available on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 and for not considering the petitioner’s claim for placement in E-5 grade during 2015-16 panel year, as arbitrary and illegal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Accounts Officer in the respondent-Company on 08.03.2000 and was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer in E-4 grade on 26.01.2012 along with others and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 were juniors to the petitioner in E-4 grade. The petitioner worked on deputation to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana), Hyderabad, from 25.08.2013 to 31.03.2015, with prior approval of the respondent authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner was repatriated to the respondent-Company on 31.03.2015. The petitioner is eligible for the promotion to the E-5 grade for the panel year 2015-16 and over and above the respondent Nos.6 and 7. The respondent authorities have not considered the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the E-5 grade for the panel year 2015-16 on the ground that the petitioner’s Performance Appraisal Reports (for short, “PARs”) were rated as Adequate for the year 2013–14 and promoted the respondent Nos.6 and 7, who were juniors to the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the said action of the respondents is contrary to Rule 8.4(1) of the Singareni Collieries Company Limited Executives Promotion Rules . As per the said rule, the respondents have to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, as only one year rated as Adequate in the Performance Appraisal Reports is to be treated as satisfactory and such rating would not be a bar for recommendation for promotion.

5. Learned counsel further submits that, as per paragraph No.6 in the counter filed by the respondent-Company, the petitioner is eligible for promotion for the financial year 2015–16, as she has completed three (03) years of service, and is also eligible for the promotion to E-5 grade along with the respondent Nos.6 and 7, and she is also entitled to seniority over and above respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and therefore, learned counsel requested this Court to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 10.01.2024 and also directing the respondents to fix the seniority of the petitioner over and above respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the same category.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, basing on the counter filed by the respondent-Company, submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is the competent authority to decide the promotions to the Executives working in the respondent-Company.The DPC has not recommended promotion to the petitioner as Dy. Finance Manager in E-5 grade during the panel year 2015–16. As per Rule No.5.1 of the Executive Promotion Rules of the respondent-Company, an Executive shall be eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher scale of pay only after he/she has completed three years of effective service in his/her present scale of pay and is also confirmed