HAV GAMBHIR SINGH CHAHAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing his Annual Confidential Report (for short' ACR') for the year 2001. The petitioner has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Naib-Subedar ignoring the ACR for the year 2001 and to grant him promotion with effect from December, 2004/january, 2005 or April, 2006 with all consequential benefits. During the course of arguments the petitioner has restricted his relief to the grant of promotion with effect from 1-5-2006 only and has given up his claim for promotion with effect from December, 2004/january, 2005.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as a signalman on 9-3-1981. He was subsequently promoted as Naik in the year 1988 and Havildar in the 1991. The next promotion post of the petitioner is naib-Subedar. It is submitted that when the petitioner's case was considered for promotion to the post of Naib-Subedar by the Departmental Promotion committee which met in April, 2006, he was not found fit for promotion only due to his ACR entries of the year 2001. The petitioner submits that in the acr's for the period 2001 to 2005 he has been awarded four marks for the period 2002 to 2005 and has been graded 'above average' but only because of his acr of the year 2001, where he was graded as 'average', he was not found fit for promotion on the post of Naib-Subedar. The petitioner submits that as the ACR grading for the year 2001 came in the way of the petitioner's promotion, it should have been treated as an adverse entry and should have been compulsorily communicated to him and as the respondents have failed to do so, the promotion proceedings as far as it relates to the petitioner are vitiated. The petitioner further submits that even in the year 2001 the initiating officer had given high grades to the petitioner but the Reviewing Officer down graded the entries as a result of which the petitioner was deprived of his promotion, even though the same initiating and reviewing officer had given him above average grading in the previous year, i. e. , in the year 2000. It is submitted that as this down grading by the reviewing officer was not communicated to the petitioner it should be ignored and the petitioner should be granted promotion on the basis of the grading awarded to him by the reporting officer. As it is reiterated that he has given up his claim for being considered for promotion with effect from the year 2004- 2005,i refrain from adverting to the facts and allegations of the petitioner in respect of those years and confine the adjudication of the present case to the departmental promotion proceeding which were undertaken in the year 2006.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments reported in (1996) 2 SCC 363, UP. Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra Jain, 1994 mplj 986, Major General R. S. Taragi Vs. Union of India and others, 1993 M. P. Service Times 344, Shiva Nand Prasad Vs. Chief of Army Staff and others, the unreported judgments of this Court passed in W. P. No. 3474/1995, Subedar babu Singh Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 1-5-1999, Writ Petition no. 282/1999, Havildar Kundan Singh Rawat Vs. Union of India and others, decided on 9-3-2006 and the judgment reported in 2000 (2) MPLJ 326, Madan pal Singh Vs. Union of India and others, in support of his contentions.