-1- Civil Writ Petition No.11505 of 2007 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: April 07, 2008. Ashwani Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the -2- Civil Writ Petition No.11505 of 2007 (O&M). Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior Technician (X-ray) with the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as `the P.G.I') seeks promotion to the post of Senior Technician (X-ray) from the date his juniors were promoted as such. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner's case for promotion as Senior Technician (X-ray) was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as `D.P.C') on April 08, 1993 along with other Junior Technicians (X-ray) i.e Ram Singh and Suresh Kumar. His name for promotion was, however, not recommended by the D.P.C after considering his five preceding Annual Confidential Reports. On July 21, 1993, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as `the C.B.I) had got registered a case against the petitioner under Sections 409/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, another meeting of the D.P.C was held on May 15, 1997 for promotions to the posts of Senior Technicians (X-ray). However, petitioner's name was not recommended for promotion. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case after trial. Regarding recording of adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 1988-89, he submitted representation (Annexure P-19), which has not been decided by the P.G.I authorities as yet. It is the case of the petitioner that adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 were never -3- Civil Writ Petition No.11505 of 2007 (O&M). conveyed to him. In the written statement, Annual Confidential Reports of preceding five years in respect of Ram Singh and Suresh Kumar, Juniors Technicians (X-ray), who were junior to the petitioner and were recommended for promotion as Senior Assistants (X-ray), have been reproduced. Ram Singh has three `Average' reports whereas Suresh Kumar has one `Average' report. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the case of Parmal Khan v. State of Haryana, 1996 (6) S.L.R. 755, wherein it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that adverse remarks in confidential report cannot be acted upon to deny promotional opportunities unless the same are communicated to the person concerned and representation thereagainst is disposed of. An employee is entitled to make representation against adverse remarks communicated to him and the concerned authority is bound to consider and dispose of the same. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation (Annexure P-19) submitted by the petitioner against the adverse remarks conveyed to him for the year 1988-89 and to keep in view the observations of this Court made in Parmal Khan 's (case) (supra) while considering the affect of other adverse remarks, which were not conveyed to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is found entitled for promotion as Senior Technician (X- ray), he should be granted the same with effect from April 24, 1993, when Ram Singh and Suresh Kumar, Junior Technician -4- Civil Writ Petition No.11505 of 2007 (O&M). (X-ray), who were junior to the petitioner as such, were promoted, with all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner will not be entitled to back wages. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE April 07, 2008. ak