PARMAL KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a government employee be denied promotion merely on the basis of an adverse remark recorded in his annual confidential report against which his representation is pending consideration This is the short question which needs our consideration in this writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner on being appointed as a Peon, vide orders dated 26.3.1982 passed by respondent No. 2, joined his duties as such in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Taoru, District Gurgaon, with effect from 1.4.1982. He passed his matriculation examination in the year 1984 and also fulfils the requisite qualifications required for the post of a clerk. According to the instructions dated 10.12.1991 (Annexure P.1) issued by respondent No. 1, 20% posts of clerks are to be filled up by promotion from Class IV employees who have improved their qualifications and passed Matriculation examination. The petitioner is the seniormost class IV employee in the department. He alongwith Sarvshri Khem Chand and Parmod Kumar appeared for a Type-test on 26.11.1987 for being promoted as a Clerk. According to the information of the petitioner, Shri Khem Chand and Shri Parmod Kumar have been promoted while ignoring the petitioner. Several representations have been made for the consideration of his case for promotion but in vain. By letter dated 23.11.1992, the petitioner was informed that his case was under consideration but on 14.5.1993 he was informed that there was no vacancy with the department. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in ignoring him for promotion to the post of a Clerk as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Clerk from the date he became eligible and to pay consequential benefits arising therefrom.

(3.) Notice was issued to the respondents. In their written statement, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is working as a Peon in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Taoru, and he is the senior most class IV employee in this department. It has also been admitted that the petitioner has improved his qualification. It has also been admitted that 20% posts of Clerks are to be filled up by promotion from amongst class IV employees. It has been stated that the service record of the petitioner was not upto the mark and as such he was not promoted in the year 1987 when other Peons were promoted as Clerks. It has been explained that there are adverse entries in the annual confidential reports of the petitioner for the period 1983-84, 1985-86 and 1986-87. It has been stated that according to these adverse entries, the petitioner was found to be disobedient, indisciplined, not punctual and shirked work and as such he was not found fir for promotion. It has been admitted that the representation made by the petitioner was received and he was informed vide letter dated 23.12.1994 that his case was under consideration and due to non-existence of any vacancy, he could not be promoted to the post of Clerk. In his replication, the petitioner has stated that the annual confidential report for the year 1983-84 was communicated to him after an inordinate delay i.e. on 10.9.1987 and he made a representation against the adverse remarks, that the adverse remarks for the year 1985-86 were communicated to him on 13.7.1987 and he immediately made a representation against those adverse remarks, and similarly the adverse remarks for the year 1986-87 were communicated to him on 10.9.1987 and he made a representation against these adverse remarks on 29.9.1987. It has been further stated that all the three representations made by him are still pending with the respondents, and without deciding these representations made by the petitioner, these annual confidential reports cannot be acted upon to deny promotion to him.