ANIL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CWP No. 10562 of 2012 & CMP No. 13743 of 2014.

(2.) IN this matter, although it is an application filed with the prayer for hearing the main writ petition at an early date, yet keeping in view that the point in issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of the apex Court and also in the nature of the order proposed to be passed, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition has been taken up today itself for final disposal. The petitioner presently is working as Superintending Engineer in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The complaint is that at the time of his promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, he has been superseded by his juniors on the basis of the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It has been urged that in the ACRs for the year 2007 -08, 2008 -09 and 2009 -10 (Annexures P -4 to P -6), he has been rated as good/average. These ACRs, however, were never conveyed to him. The writ petition, therefore, has been filed with the following prayers: -

(3.) RESPONDENT -State in reply to the writ petition has come forward with the version that since the petitioner was graded as 'good' in the ACRs and assessments so made not amounts to adverse entries, there was no need to convey the ACRs for the year 2007 -2008, 2008 -2009 and 2009 -2010. It has also been contended that his merit has been assessed as 'good' by the Departmental Promotion Committee, therefore, has been rightly assigned the place in the selection list as per his merit. Also that the criteria being merit -cum -seniority, there is no question of supersession of the petitioner by his juniors. The law applicable to the issue, which needs adjudication in this petition, is no more res integra as the apex Court in Dev Dutt versus Union of India & Others, : (2008) 8 SCC, 725, in an identical situation, where the bench mark for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was 'very good' whereas the petitioner rated as 'good' and as according to the apex Court, in a case where under the rules the bench mark for promotion to a higher post is 'very good', gradation of an officer in the lower grade as 'good' in fact amounts to adverse entries, has held as follows: -