JAGRUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For purpose of this case, we will consider the petitioner to be eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of Assistant Draftsman. It may be observed here that the petitioner had appeared in the Draftsman Examination in February, 1994 by virtue of interim directions of Sub-Judge First Class, where he had filed a suit. His result was not declared as the respondent-State had filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial court which was dismissed and the result was declared on 12.12.1996 as "passed". The respondents themselves considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but did not find him suitable on the basis of his record of service. The same has been culled out by the respondents in paragraph 1 of the written statement, the relevant portion of which is reproduced below :

(2.) On the basis of the above said record, the case of the respondents is that since petitioner had obtained only six 'good' or above reports for the last 10 years when his case was considered for promotion, he could not be treated as suitable as per the Haryana Government instructions which require seven 'good' or above reports in the last ten years from the date of consideration. The further case is that for the year 1987-88 the integrity of the petitioner was assessed to be average and since it amounts to integrity being doubtful the petitioner cannot be promoted for atleast 10 years from 1987-88. It may be observed here that the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated February 9, 1998, enclosing therewith an order dated 9.2.1998, whereby the representation of the petitioner against the average report of the year 1989-90 was accepted and after expunging the adverse remarks the over-all grading has been up- graded from 'average' to 'good'. It was further argued that the report for the year 1992-93 is not available and consequently it should be treated to be good.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the stand of the respondents that the report of the petitioner for the year 1987-88 was 'integrity doubtful' is not a correct stand as is evident that the Reporting Officer had only mentioned that the integrity was assessed to be average. This does not mean that the integrity was doubtful. Had it been so then nothing prevented to the Reporting Officer that if he was of the view that the integrity of the petitioner was doubtful to record so and withhold the integrity certificate. It is likely that on the basis of these remarks the over-all grading of the petitioner for that year was average.