GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ex. Capt. Gurdev Singh, who is presently posted as Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) in the office of Engineer-in-Chief P.W.D. Public Health Branch, Haryana, Chandigarh, through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash order dated 6.10.90, Annexure P-3 by which his representation permitting him to cross two efficiency bars, with effect from 23.1.1973 and from 1.4.1980 was rejected. He further seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him to cross the efficiency bar and fixation of his pay in accordance therewith. The facts from which the relief as asked for stems, need to be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner remained in military service from July 1963 to September 1, 1968 and after his release from the Army, he joined the post of Principal in Industrial Training Department, Haryana from 15.7.1970 and remained in this Department upto 1.5.1974. Thereafter, he joined the Department of P.W.D. Public Health Branch on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) as a direct recruit against the reserve quota meant for ex-servicemen. He was granted the benefit of military service vide orders dated 1.7.1988 and was assigned the deemed date of appointment as 7.11.1969 as the service that he had rendered in the Industrial Training Department was also taken into consideration. The petitioner was also assigned deemed date of appointment as 23.1.1966. He was to cross the efficiency bar if for the five years preceding the date on which he was due to cross the efficiency bar his service record was not poor. While assessing the service record, remarks in his confidential report with regard to efficiency, honesty and integrity etc. were also to be taken into consideration. The case of the petitioner is that he was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 23.1.1973 but was not allowed to do so on the ground that he was not found fit as his service record was not good. The matter was again reviewed and once again he was not found fit from the next date of consideration, that is, 23.1.1974. Petitioner after receipt of the letter not permitting him to cross the efficiency bar made a representation to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Industrial Training Department in which besides other grounds he also pleaded that no adverse report was ever communicated to him since he left the office of Industrial Training Institute. He also pleaded that he was being regularly granted his annual grade increments and thus there was no question of his service record being bad. The Commissioner, however, vide his order dated 16.10.1990, Annexure P/3, rejected the representation, which as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment has been challenged by the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner remained in military service from July 1963 to September 1, 1968 and after his release from the Army, he joined the post of Principal in Industrial Training Department, Haryana from 15.7.1970 and remained in this Department upto 1.5.1974. Thereafter, he joined the Department of P.W.D. Public Health Branch on the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mechanical) as a direct recruit against the reserve quota meant for ex-servicemen. He was granted the benefit of military service vide orders dated 1.7.1988 and was assigned the deemed date of appointment as 7.11.1969 as the service that he had rendered in the Industrial Training Department was also taken into consideration. The petitioner was also assigned deemed date of appointment as 23.1.1966. He was to cross the efficiency bar if for the five years preceding the date on which he was due to cross the efficiency bar his service record was not poor. While assessing the service record, remarks in his confidential report with regard to efficiency, honesty and integrity etc. were also to be taken into consideration. The case of the petitioner is that he was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 23.1.1973 but was not allowed to do so on the ground that he was not found fit as his service record was not good. The matter was again reviewed and once again he was not found fit from the next date of consideration, that is, 23.1.1974. Petitioner after receipt of the letter not permitting him to cross the efficiency bar made a representation to the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Industrial Training Department in which besides other grounds he also pleaded that no adverse report was ever communicated to him since he left the office of Industrial Training Institute. He also pleaded that he was being regularly granted his annual grade increments and thus there was no question of his service record being bad. The Commissioner, however, vide his order dated 16.10.1990, Annexure P/3, rejected the representation, which as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment has been challenged by the petitioner.