DHARAM PAL PANWAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner complains of raw deal meted out to him by the respondents who first ignored him for promotion when general promotions were made and preferred his juniors primarily on the ground that he did not have a good service record and for the second time when they were asked to consider the matter after adverse remarks contained in report of the petitioner had been expunged on the ground that criteria for promotion had, meanwhile, changed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner joined in the respondent- bank as Land Valuation Officer on 5.12.1967. He was promoted to the rank of Field Officer in February 1978. The respondent/bank promoted 22 Junior Accounts/Field Officers as Officiating Managers in their own pay scale on 5.8.1985. Petitioner was also promoted as Officiating Manager and it is the case of the petitioner that his promotion was approved by the Board of Directors. The services conditions of employees of the respondent bank are governed by the staff Service Rules of the respondent-bank. Prior to 23.8.1993 when 1974 Service Rules were amended, only requirement for promotion to the post of Manager was that the incumbent should have atleast five years experience as Assistant/Junior Accountant/Senior Scale Stenographer/Field Officer etc. However, after 23.8.1993 when 1974 Staff Service Rules were amended, the minimum qualification for post of Manager was prescribed as graduate. Even though the petitioner alongwith others was promoted as Officiating Manager, the case with regard to regular promotion of the petitioner was placed before the Board of Directors of respondent-bank vide agenda item No. 11 on 8.2.1994. The name of the petitioner was included in the list of eligible Field Officers/Junior Accountants for promotion to the post of Manager. As per seniority list petitioner was shown at Serial No. 52 whereas respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were shown at Serial Nos. 53 and 54. In this consideration for promotion alongwith others petitioner was, however, ignored on the pretext that there were adverse entries in his service record. This has been so mentioned while ignoring the petitioner as would be evident from perusal of Annexure P-4. Pursuant to the decision Annexure P-4, Junior Accountants/Field Officers including respondents 4 and 5 were promoted. When petitioner came to know that he has been ignored for promotion on account of adverse entries contained in his confidential records which were never communicated to him, he filed representation against the said adverse remarks and it is conceded position that the adverse remarks contained in his confidential reports were expunged vide order Annexure P-6 dated 2.4.1996. The order aforesaid reads as follows :

(3.) While passing order Annexure P-6, the Registrar Cooperative Societies not only expunged the adverse remarks contained in the ACRs of the petitioner but further directed the respondent-bank to put up promotion case of the petitioner in the next meeting of the Board of Directors. It is pursuant to this order that the matter was taken up by the Board of Directors vide agenda item No. 14 in the meeting that was held on 17.1.1997. The petitioner was once again ignored for promotion this time, however, on the ground that as per amended provisions the minimum qualifications for the post of Manager is graduate whereas as per the unamended service rules, it was only matric. Pursuant to the decision taken by the Board of Directors, the case of the petitioner for promotion was rejected vide order dated 13.3.1997 (Annexure P- 10). The facts as have been fully detailed above have not been disputed. On the admitted facts as have been detailed above, Mr. Surya Kant, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that respondent-bank ignored the petitioner for promotion on both occasions as referred to above on wholly untenable grounds. For the first time the petitioner was ignored on the ground that there were adverse remarks in his confidential reports and the said reports were never communicated to the petitioner. It is further the contention of the learned counsel that when adverse remarks contained in the confidential reports of the petitioner were expunged, the petitioner could not be ignored on the ground that the rules laying eligibility criteria for promotion had since been changed.