VALSAMMA MATHEW Vs. CHAIRMAN RUBBER BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as a Junior Scientific Officer in the Regional Laboratory of the Rubber Board, is aggrieved by the adverse remarks in her Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2011-12 and consequential denial of the benefit of Modified Assured Career Progression ('MACP' for short) Scheme as well as regular promotion as Assistant Scientific Officer.

(2.) The petitioner commenced her service in the Rubber Board on 23.11.1989. She got promotion as Junior Scientific Officer on 11.3.2005. The employees under the Rubber Board are eligible for financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme, on completion of 10 years of service. The petitioner therefore claims that she is entitled to financial upgradation in the prerevised grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f 11.3.2015. It is also claimed that she was entitled to be promoted as Assistant Scientific Officer against a retirement vacancy which arose on 18.1.2016. The petitioner submits that the only reason for denial of the benefit under MACP scheme as well as regular promotion is the adverse remarks in her APAR for the year 2011-1 Referring to various guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in respect of preparation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACR/APAR), the petitioner claims that the adverse remarks happened to be entered in her APAR since the controlling officer did not follow the procedure prescribed in the guidelines. It is also her case that the final grade in her APAR was not communicated to her and therefore such adverse remarks cannot stand in the way of granting her the benefit of MACP or regular promotion. The petitioner claims that she had submitted several representations against the adverse remarks in Ext.P1 APAR for the year 2011-12, but the same was not considered favourably. As no orders were passed on her representations, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P(c).No.7393/2017, after submitting a representation dated 9.1.2017. As per judgment dated 6.3.2017, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider her representation against the adverse remarks in the light of the relevant guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. But as per Ext.P7 order dated 11.4.2017, her representation was rejected. Even though the petitioner filed a contempt case, it was closed as per judgment dated 11.12017 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed. This writ petition is filed in the above circumstances.

(3.) The petitioner points out that the respondents did not consider the procedural violation pointed out in any of her representations with reference to the guidelines issued by the Central Government. Referring to the entries in her ACR/APAR for the year 2010-2011 and those in the APAR for the year 2011-12, the petitioner points out that she was assessed as 'very good' in 2010-11; whereas in 2011-12 she was assessed as 'good' only. The petitioner points out that her reporting officer for the period 2010-2011 retired from service on 31.10.11. She worked under a new reporting officer from 1.11.2011. She was on eligible leave from 30.1.2012 to 31.12.2012, which is less than 3 months. Therefore, she claims that the new Reporting Officer was not competent to make entries in her APAR. It is stated that he made the remarks in her APAR after agreeing with the entries in the self appraisal report of the petitioner. In the year 2010-11, the remarks against integrity was 'beyond doubt' and she had an overall grading of 'very good'. As against "general intelligence and keenness to learn" the remark was 'good' for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. As against 'attention to routine aspects of work', it was remarked as "pays adequate attention" for the year 2010-11; whereas it was "has to be constantly prompted and supervised" for the year 2011-12. Similarly, as against 'knowledge of rules, regulations etc.' the remark was 'average' for the year 2011-12; whereas it was 'very good' for the year 2010-11. Other entries like 'professional/technical knowledge', 'promptness in disposal of work', she was assessed to be 'very good/very prompt' for the year 2010-11; whereas it was "good" and "reasonably prompt" respectively for the year 2011-12; as against 'devotion to duty' and 'capacity to get work done', the remark was 'average'; as against relation with fellow employees and public relations it was 'good' for the year 2011- 12. Her integrity was stated to be 'beyond doubt' in 2010-11; whereas it was stated to be 'good' for 2011-12. According to the petitioner, the officer who entered such remarks ought to have entrusted the matter to the officer who was having acquaintance with her performance as provided in the guidelines Ext.P2, the guidelines issued in O.M.No.21011/1/2005-Estt. (A) (Pt)-II dt.14.5.2009, annexure to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 etc. It is also pointed out that the manner of grading was altered from 2009 onwards and numerical grading was introduced. But in the case of the petitioner the prerevised method was adopted. On that ground and because the final grading was not communicated to the petitioner, she claims that the adverse remarks entered in her APAR are not liable to be acted upon for assessing her eligibility for MACP and regular promotion.