CHAKRADHAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Assistant Surgeon in Grade II with effect from July 19, 1954 and confirmed in that status since July 19, 1955, the petitioner, ranking twenty-fifth amongst the confirmed Grade II Assistant Surgeons the opposite parties 4 to 17 being juniors to him in the gradation list (Annexure-1) has come to this Court to ventilate his grievance that in spite of the Chief Ministers certificate (Annexure-2) dated Oct., 2, 1962 and his diploma in Public Health from the All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, Calcutta, equivalent to a post-graduate degree for the purpose of promotion as Civil Surgeon and having been given the selection grade with effect from Sept. 13, 1968 and having done commendable work in family planning in the district of Sundargarh during the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 for which favourable commendations have been given in his favour by two Collectors of the district of Sundargarh and having been awarded several cups, medals and shields in the inter-district competitions in family planning work, the State Government did not consider him to be fit for promotion on the basis of adverse entries (Annexure-3) relating to his performance for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 recorded by the Civil Surgeon against whom the petitioner had made a complaint in writing (Annexure-4) with regard to a surgical case and on the basis of adverse reports regarding his performance for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 (Annexure-6) without duly considering the representations made by him and despite the fact that on two occasions, once in 1968-69 and again in 1976, he had been allowed to cross the efficiency bar. The petitioner wants this Court to quash the adverse entries made- in his Confidential Character Roll and to direct the State Government to consider his case for promotion ignoring those entries and consequently to step up his scale of pay which persons junior to him had been getting in ad hoc promotional posts. The State Government (opposite party No. 1) in one counter-affidavit and the Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Health and Family Welfare Department (opposite party No. 2) and the Director of Health Services (opposite party No. 3) in another, have controverted the allegations made by the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. R. N. Das has submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having been allowed to cross the efficiency bar on two occasions, the petitioner ought to have been promoted to the higher post and the decision not to promote him should not have been based on uncommunicated adverse entries and without properly considering the representations made by the petitioner to expunge the adverse remarks made against him by the Civil Surgeon who had been reported against by the petitioner. But as submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3, the adverse remarks on the work of the petitioner for the years 1969-70 and 1970-71 had been communicated to him as per the former Political and Services Department (at present General Administration Department) D. O. letter No. 8379/S.E. dt. 9-11-1972 and the petitioner's representation for expunction of the remarks made in his D. O. letter No. 3896 dt. 28-12-1972 was carefully examined after obtaining the substantiation report from the Chief District Medical Officer, Sundargarh, who was the reporting authority for the petitioner during the said period as well as the views of the opposite party No. 2 and the representation was rejected. This order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner in Aug., 1973 as per Annexure-A. It has also been submitted by him and it would appear from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that the adverse remarks in the Confidential Character Roll of the petitioner for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77 had been communicated to the petitioner as per D. O. letter No. 3910/S.E. dt. 11-4-1978 and the petitioner's representation against the entries in his D. O. letter No. 9 dt. 23-8-1978 was carefully considered and although the remarks recorded against him were graver and more serious in nature, the remarks were toned down as follows :

(3.) We have already indicated that the adverse entries in the Confidential Character Roll of the petitioner had been communicated to him. Even assuming, as has been submitted before us by Mr. Das, that some of the adverse entries had not duly been communicated to him but had been considered while judging the question of his promotion, one may keep in mind the decision of this Court in Ramesh Prasad Mahapatra V/s. State of Orissa, 1980 LabIC 658 (FB). Distinguishing the principles laid down in Gurdial Singh Fijji V/s. State of Punjab, 1979 AIR(SC) 1622 by stating that the observations made therein must be confined to the facts of that case and referring to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in S. S. S. Venkatrao v. State of Orissa,1974 LabIC 1192 this Court held (at p. 664) :-