RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 02.05.1994 whereby, respondent no. 1 has rejected the representation of the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Carpenter, against the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. Challenge has also been made to the promotion of respondents no. 3 and 4 as Carpenters vide order dated 30.04.1993.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he joined as a Helper in Haryana Roadways, Sonepat w.e.f. 16.01.1984 and due to his outstanding performance, he was promoted as Assistant Carpenter w.e.f. 17.11.1986 by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sonepat and was placed at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list of Assistant Carpenters. On 23.03.1993, respondent no. 2 conveyed Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 vide letters dated 31.03.1992 and 19.01.1993 wherein, the petitioner's performance was shown as 'below average' in the Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989-90 and 'average' for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92. A detailed representation was filed through proper channel on 08.04.1993 against the said adverse reports and allegations were levelled against respondent no. 2 for spoiling the Annual Confidential Reports. It was further pleaded that respondent no. 2, vide order dated 30.04.1993, promoted four Assistant Carpenters on ad hoc basis on the post of Carpenters w.e.f. 01.05.1993 and the petitioner was ignored and persons junior to him were promoted. Respondent no. 3 was junior having joined on 17.04.1984 as Helper and promoted as Assistant Carpenter on 07.11.1988 whereas respondent no. 4 had joined as Helper in May, 1985 and promoted as Assistant Carpenter on 07.11.1988. The said persons' names were figuring at Sr. Nos. 7 and 8 in the seniority list. Accordingly, it was alleged that respondent no. 2 had given undue benefit to the said respondents. The said Annual Confidential Reports had been changed for giving undue benefit and there was mala fide intention on the part of respondent no. 2. The reason for not communicating the adverse remarks was not given. The petitioner had filed CWP No. 8294 of 1993 and this Court on 14.02.1994 had directed respondent no. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned order. Subsequently, order dated 21.05.1994 had been passed by giving valid reasons. The respondents had wrongly taken the ground that due to the fire during the anti-reservation movement, the record had been burnt and how the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1989-90 onwards had remained in tact. The promotion was to be made on the basis of senioritycum-merit and the petitioner being senior, was eligible for promotion. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed. Reference was also made to the instructions dated 13.04.1972 where integrity of the employee was not found doubtful and he was found entitled for promotion as he had got 50% 'good' or 'average' reports.

(3.) Written statement was filed in which, it was admitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Helper on 16.01.1984 and was promoted as Assistant Carpenter w.e.f. 17.11.1986 and placed at Sr. No. 4 in the seniority list of Assistant Carpenters. It was pleaded that the case of promotion from Assistant Carpenter to Carpenter was considered but the performance of the petitioner during the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 was not found upto the mark. The Annual Confidential Reports for the said years were written separately as the official records were burnt on 27.09.1990 in Anti Mandal Commission Agitation and the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner were available in which adverse remarks had been passed which were communicated to the petitioner on 29.02.1993. The case of the petitioner was also considered alongwith respondents no. 3 and 4 but due to the adverse remarks, his case for promotion was not made out and he was accordingly not promoted.