KULTARNJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the year 2012-13 (Annexure P-4), whereby, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case, as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Science Master on 09.11.1987. Thereafter, he was promoted as lecturer on 17.02.1993. As per case of the petitioner, he was eligible for promotion to the post of Principal but junior to him were promoted and he was subsequently promoted as Principal on 22.07.2013. It is also the case of the petitioner that his service record was very good/excellent. The adverse remarks were recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the year 2012-13. The petitioner made a representation against the adverse remarks stating therein that a complaint was made by him against respondent No.4 for violating the rules and for working against the norms of the department and due to that reason, a threat was given to him to down grade the ACR and to spoil his career. In the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2012-13, in the column of integrity, the remarks of 'Unreliable' was mentioned and it was assessed as average, which was approved by the reviewing authority. The petitioner filed CWP No.17502 of 2014 to challenge the adverse remarks, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.05.2015, which is also under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the service record of the petitioner has been very good/excellent and his work has been appreciated from time to time but due to mala fide intention of respondent No.4 and due to complaint made by the petitioner against respondent No.4, the adverse remarks have been recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 2012-13. A representation was made by the petitioner, stating therein, that respondent No.4 has threatened him to spoil his career. The claim of the petitioner, as directed by this Court in the petition filed by him, has wrongly been rejected.