(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the note-sheet dated 28/5/2018, thereby rejecting the claim of petitioner for reconsideration of her case for promotion from the post of Deputy Director to the post of Joint Director on the ground that although the adverse confidential remarks have been upgraded, but up-gradation of adverse confidential remarks will have the prospective effect and, therefore, all the departmental actions taken prior to that will not be affected.
(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Director. A DPC was convened for promotion to the post of Joint Director on 26/12/2014 and the petitioner was within the zone of consideration. The candidature of the candidates was considered on the basis of merit-cum-seniority basis and the ACRs of preceding five years were considered. Because of downgraded ACRs of the petitioner, the petitioner was found not fit for promotion. Later on, considering the representation made by the petitioner, the ACRs of 2011, 2012 and 2013 were upgraded by order dated 9/10/2017. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for reconsideration of her case for promotion, as the adverse confidential remarks, on the basis of which she was denied promotion, have been upgraded and, therefore, it was submitted that for all practical purposes, the upgraded remarks should be treated to be in existence from very inception. However, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected on the ground that as per the circular dated 10/11/2015, up-gradation of the ACRs would be effective prospectively and not retrospectively.
(3.) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that the GAD has issued circular dated 10/11/2015, which provides that in case of up-gradation of adverse confidential remarks, the same would have prospective effect and the previous departmental actions would not be affected.