Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 1990 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 1990 Date of Decision: February 24, 2010 Soran Singh ......... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .......... Respondents 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Ms. Harmanjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pattar, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 5.12.1988 whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired on attaining the age of 55 years in terms of Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I Part I read with Rule 5.32A (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable to the State of Haryana. The petitioner joined Government High Court, Mohina, on Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 1990 [2] 17.5.1960 as Social Study Master. The services of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Education Service Class III (School Cadre) Rules 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules”). It is alleged by the petitioner that his service record is good, therefore, he was expecting to be retained in service till the age of superannuation though he attained the age of 55 years on 14.9.1988. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that no adverse report has been communicated to him, therefore, he cannot be prematurely retired after having served faithfully, efficiently and sincerely the department. The petitioner was prematurely retired on attaining the age of 55 years on the basis of his service record in terms of Rule 3.26 (d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I Part I read with Rule 5.32A (c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II as applicable to the State of Haryana. Government of Haryana issued instructions on 30.06.1975 and 9.8.1975 that 50% of good reports in the last 10 years could earn a Government employee the right of retention into government service. However, such decision was revised on 16.08.1986 vide Annexure P-3 and it was decided that after the age of 55 years an employee who has 75% good or better than good reports in the last 10 years would be retained in service. In reply, it has been pointed out that instructions were issued by the department on 21.12.1979 that the overall grading recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the teacher can be upgraded or downgraded by the Director of School Education on the basis of results of the classes taught by the teacher. As per report from the school in which the petitioner worked from 1978 till 1989, the result of the 8th and 10th classes remained low. The annual confidential report of the petitioner has been finally graded Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 1990 [3] in the following manner:- Sr. No. Year Grading recorded in the annual confidential report Result of the schools compared to result of Haryana School Education Board Final grading of the annual confidential report after taking the results into consideration. 1 1978-79 +B Minus B (Average) 2 1979-80 A Plus / Minus A 3 1980-81 +A Plus / Minus + A 4 1981-82 A Plus / Minus A 5 1982-83 +B Minus B (Average) 6 1983-84 +B Plus / Minus + B 7 1984-85 +A Plus / Minus + A 8 1985-86 A Plus / Minus A 9 1986-87 +B Minus B (Average) 10 1987-88 +B Minus B (Average) It is further pointed out that as per above table, out of last ten annual confidential reports, overall grading of his four annual confidential reports is average and his service record is good to the extent of only 60 % which is less than 70 % contemplated in the instructions. Consequently, the petitioner was ordered to be prematurely retired. There is no challenge to the instructions dated 21.12.1979 in respect of the right of the Director of Schools Education to upgrade or downgrade the annual confidential report. The annual confidential report recorded by the recording officer has been downgraded by the Director School Education in terms of the aforesaid instructions. In the overall grading, four reports have been found to be average. Therefore, he does not satisfy the parameter of overall good reports to the extent of 70% in the last 10 years which alone could entitle the petitioner to be retained in service beyond the age of 55 years. Civil Writ Petition No. 634 of 1990 [4] Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. February 24, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE