SULOCHANA Vs. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Smti Sulochana instituted the present writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayers directing the respondent authorities to expunge the adverse entry made in her service record for the year 2008 - 2009 and 2009 -2010 and a direction upon the respondent No 1 to conduct a review Departmental Promotional Committee in respect of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Official Language) under the respondents authorities and also to set aside the order dated 22nd February, 2011 whereby the respondent No 6 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Of ficial Language) along with many other prayers.

(2.) THE fact of the case in short is that the petitioner was appointed on 4th July 1985 as Hindi Translator by the Office of Respondent No 3. On 15th November 1994 she was promoted to the post of Hindi Officer. Afterwards she was nominated as Public Information Officer under respondent No 3. After getting communication from her office on 11th December 2007 she duly submitted an application expressing her willingness for promotion to the post Deputy Director (Official Language). The petitioner availed Child Care Leave from 28th May 2009 to 13th November 2009 and the said leave was extended by respondent No 3 from time to time upto 1st July 2007. The petitioner afterwards came to know that the respondent No 1 promoted the respondent No 6,who is admittedly junior to her, to the post of Deputy Director (Official Language) but rejected the candidature of the petitioner by the DPC.

(3.) THE respondent No.1, 2 and 3 filed the affidavit -in opposition without annexing a single copy of documents stating that as per established procedure of ICAR/ Government of India any employee dissatisfied with her/his grading can make a representation to the Appellate Authority. But in lieu of filling any such representation for consideration of the ACR grading, the petitioner filed this writ petition which is premature. Furthermore, the writ petitioner is a habitual poor performer which is evident from the record for the year 2007 -2008 and she is unable to perform her duty properly the remarks in the ACR are based on facts and not in mala fide intention. The respondent authorities attempted to communicate the adverse entries made in the concerned ACR to the petitioner but at that time she was on leave for a substantial period and in absence of discloser of residential address in the service records the authorities were not in position to communicate the same.