RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as a Sub-Inspector in the office of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab on May 13, 1960. The post of Sub-Inspector was in the pay scale of Rs. 110-4-130/5-160-EB-5-200. The petitioner was due to cross the Efficiency Bar at the stage of Rs. 160.00 by May 14, 1972. No order was passed. However, in the year 1977, three orders dated April 18, 1977, July 20, 1977 and Aug. 17, 1977 were passed. It was ordered that the petitioner was not fit to cross the Efficiency Bar. Finally, vide order dated March 21, 1983, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from May 1, 1983. The petitioner represented against this order. Copies of some of those representations have been placed on the record. Vide order dated March 12, 1991, the representations were rejected. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, in not allowing the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from May 1, 1972 and in rejecting his representations, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(2.) The respondents have filed a written statement. A summary of the petitioner's record of service has been given in paragraph 14. On the basis thereof, it has been stated that the petitioner was not considered to be suitable for crossing the Efficiency Bar prior to May 1, 1983. It has been further averred that the matter is governed by the instructions issued vide letter dated July 5, 1948, according to which, a person must earn 50% good reports before he can be considered suitable for crossing the Efficiency Bar. A copy of these instructions has been produced on record as annexure R.I with the statement. In these instructions, it has been inter alia provided as under:-

(3.) It is averred that the petitioner's case was considered in accordance with the above instructions and he was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from the year he fulfilled the criteria of 50% good reports. On these premises, the respondents support their action in not allowing the petitioner to cross the Efficiency Bar prior to the year 1983.