STATE Vs. MAHAVIR PR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitions are filed by State of Rajasthan involving common question, hence are being disposed of by present order. Respondent No. 1 while substantively holding post of Accountant challenged order dt. 24/12/1988 whereby certain promotions were made on the recommendations by departmental promotion committee on review & revision basis on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer against vacancies of year 1987-88. However, respondent No. 1 was senior in the cadre but was found unsuitable on the premise that there were adverse remarks in his APAR of 1982-83 & 1987-88, which he assailed before the Tribunal in appeal No. 5/89 inter-alia contending that remarks recorded in APAR of 1982-83 were communicated to him after inordinate delay and on this count, alone, very adverse remarks & letter of rejection of his representation against it deserve to be set aside, alongwith remarks in APAR of 1987-88, and consequential his very super-cession made by State Government while passing order dt.24/12/88 promoting his juniors from the cadre of Accountant on review/revision on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer, was bad.

(2.) Learned Tribunal while deciding appeal- 5/89 preferred by respondent-employee vide judgment dt.22/11/93 set aside rejection of his representation and expunged adverse remarks in APAR of 1982-83 on the premise that there was inordinate delay in communicating the same and the delay having not been explained, and being fatal, has thus caused prejudice to the employee; but at the same time, maintained adverse remarks in APAR of 1987-88; and since the promotions were made on review & revision on urgent/temporary basis vide order dt.24/12/88, it has not considered appropriate to interfere. However, State Government made regular promotions on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer against vacancy of 1989-90 vide order dt.29/08/89 on the recommendations made by DPC - in course whereof, adverse remarks recorded in APARs of 1982-83 & 1987-88 were considered to be the basis for holding respondent employee to be unsuitable for promotion, against which employee (respondent) again preferred appeal-366/1989. After adjudication whereof, vide judgment dt. 08/03/94 (Ann.3-CWP-941/95), learned Tribunal observed that as regards adverse remarks in APAR of 1982-83 since were set aside while disposing of his appeal-5/89 vide judgment dt.22/11/93; as such, State Government committed an apparent error while taking note of adverse remarks in APARs of 1982-83, while considering him for promotion against vacancy of 1989-90 and as per judgment dt.22/11/93 while disposing of appeal- 5/89, his candidature was required to be reviewed for promotion to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer.

(3.) Government Counsel for petition (State) submits that there was no delay communicating adverse remarks in APAR of 1982-83; in absence whereof, learned Tribunal committed an error in expunging those remarks - only in respect whereof, instant petitions have been filed. As regards latter judgment dt.08/03/94 (Ann.3) of learned Tribunal, it only directs the State Government to review in the light of earlier judgment dt.22/11/93.