BALWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Annual Confidential Reports bear special character when promotion is based on grading of service record in confidential rolls by the numbering system i.e. where the grading system carry marks to achieve the minimum benchmark of 12 required for promotion. The numbering policy has been laid down vide Punjab Government instructions dated 06.09.2001. The 'Outstanding' entry carries 4 marks; 'Very Good' 3 marks; 'Good' 2 marks and an 'Average', weighs 1 mark.

(2.) The petitioner retired from service in Oct., 2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. She had put 37 years in Government service of which she had spent 29 years working as an Assistant. Her claim for promotion as Superintendent Grade-I has been rejected for the reason that she was graded in the relevant previous five years prior to the date of consideration by the Department Promotion Committee as 'Below Average' for the short period 01.04.2007 to 20.08.2007 and as per instructions dated 29.12.2000 and 06.09.2001, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion due to 'Below Average' remarks recorded in her ACR. But at the same time, for the balance period of the Assessment Year 2007-08 i.e. from 21.08.2007 to 31.03.2008, the period is recorded as 'No Report Certificate'. The same is true for the period 01.04.2008 to 10.12.2008 for which period 'No Report Certificate' has also been issued. Similarly, there is no 'No Report Certificate' for the period from 08.12.2011 to 31.03.2012. In order to take a bird's eye of the ACRs for calculation of numbers required for achieving the requisite benchmark, the same are reproduced below taken from Para.3 of the written statement filed by the

(3.) There is no manner of doubt that the last 5 years' ACRs have to be taken into account while considering cases for promotion. It is the petitioner's case that she satisfies the benchmark of 12, as required by the instructions dated 06.09.2001 but there has been an error in calculation pertaining to the period 2008-09 which deserves to be corrected by issuing directions. However, not having met with any success on a representation submitted by her against non-promotion, she approached this Court by way of CWP No.21665 of 2012, which was disposed of on 10.01.2013 with a direction to the first respondent to take a final decision on the claim made by the petitioner in her legal notice dated 03.09.2012. The representation/legal notice has been rejected by the order dated 03.04.2013 (Annex P-4). The order records that the petitioner has secured only 10.5 marks and therefore is shy of the minimum benchmark entitling promotion.