NARENDRA NATH SINHA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 2.5.2000 Annexure-6 to the writ petition and for quashing the downgraded entries of the petitioner pertaining to the years 1984-85 to 1989-1990. 1993-94 and 1994-95 in the petitioner's A.C.R. and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer Level-11 against the vacancy of the year 1994-95 Ignoring the downgrading entries given by the Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officer.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) The petitioner is presently working as Superintendent Engineer in P.W.D., U. P. The U. P. Public Service Commission selected him as Assistant Engineer and thereafter he was appointed. He was promoted as Executive Engineer from 12.7.1979 and further as Superintendent Engineer initially on ad hoc basis and later on regular basis on which post he is working since 30.5.1981. He is seeking promotion as Chief Engineer Level-II (Electrical and Mechanical) under the U. P. Public Works Department Services of Engineers (Higher) Rules, 1990. Rule 5 (iii) of the said rules provides that the post of Chief Engineer Level-II shall be filled in by promotion from substantlvely appointed Superintending Engineers. True copy of the rules is Annexure-1 to the petition. A vacancy on that post arose on account of retirement of one Sri D. M. Gupta in 1994. Thereafter when he retired, one A. N. Tiwari who was junior to the petitioner was promoted on 4.12.1998 and when A. N. Tewari retired, one Harish Kumar who was also junior to the petitioner was promoted on 28.1.1999 as Chief Engineer Level-II. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal and the Tribunal by judgment dated 30.8.1999 allowed the petition vide Annexure-2 to the petition. The Tribunal quashed the appointment of Sri A. N. Tewari and Sri Harish Kumar and directed that fresh appointment shall be made after selection by the Selection Committee and the petitioner shall also be considered. In para 10 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner is not being considered as the entries given by the reporting officer have been downgraded in the character roll by the reviewing authority and accepting authority without giving opportunity of hearing and without showing any reason. Though the reporting officer had given entries Very good and excellent but the reviewing authority had downgraded such entries. In para 11 of the petition, it is alleged that promotion from Superintending Engineer to Chief Engineer is determined on the basis of merit taking into consideration entries for the last 10 years. In para 13 of the petition, it is stated that the State Government by Government order dated 28.3.1984 laid down the procedure by which A.C.R. was to be recorded. Clause 4 (2) of the Government order dated 28.3.1984 provides that in case of difference of opinion between the reporting officer and the Reviewing Officer, the Reviewing Officer shall record reasons for the same and similarly the accepting officer must also record reasons. True copy of the Government order dated 28.3.1984 is Annexure 3. The G. O. dated 5.3.1993. Annexure 4 to the petition, also requires recording of reasons for downgrading entries. The petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in. U. P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain and others, JT 1996 (2) SC 363, which laid down that reasons must be recorded for downgrading the entries. True copy of the Judgment of the Supreme Court is Annexure-5 to the petition.