TYRNA RYNGAT Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Lower Divisional Assistant in the office of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads) on being recommended by the Meghalaya Public Service Commission on 9th November, 1987 and is presently serving as Supervisory Assistant w.e.f. 15th May 2018 on being promoted during the pendency of the instant writ petition. The prayer as made out in the writ petition is for setting aside the grading of 'poor ' as recorded in the Annual Confidential Report dated 27th June, 2013, the minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 4th September, 2014, office order dated 16th September, 2014 promoting the respondents No. 4 and 5 and letter dated 14th October, 2014. The petitioner has also prayed that the gradation list dated 31st December, 2013 be declared valid and the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Supervisory Assistant from the date the said post became vacant.

(2.) I have heard Mr. G.S. Massar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Kharsyad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Khan, learned senior Government Advocate assisted by Mr. H. Abraham, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6. None appears for the respondents No. 4 and 5.

(3.) Mr. G.S. Massar, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner after her initial appointment as LDA in the year 1987 was promoted as Upper Divisional Assistant on 24th November, 1998 after completion of 11 years in service. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 3 released the provisional gradation list dated 31st December, 2013 wherein the petitioner was shown at SI. No. 3 in seniority and as there were no objections, the list attained finality and taken to be correct. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 16th December, 2013, then communicated an adverse entry made in the petitioner 's ACR for the period dated 1st September, 2012 to 31st December, 2012 and at the same time called for representation against the adverse remarks to be made within 6 weeks from the date of issue of the said letter. At this juncture the learned senior counsel refers to the Memorandum dated 21st February, 1983 issued by the Personnel and A.R. (B) Department which contains the procedures and guidelines for writing of confidential reports of State Government employees. Learned counsel contends that the communication of the said adverse entry had been done in violation of Paragraph 11 (i) of the said Memorandum which mandates that an adverse or critical remark shall be communicated within 2 months from the date of acceptance, whereas the communication was made to the petitioner after the period of 1 year, after the adverse entry had been recorded.