THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.271 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a constable in the Border Security Force in the year 1984 in the pay scale of Rs.210/-. The revised pay scales with effect from 1986 were implemented in his case and he was placed in the scale of Rs.825-1200/-. The revised pay scales provided for declaration as to crossing of efficiency bar after the incumbent reaches the scale of Rs.900/-. The petitioner reached that stage in the year 1990. The departmental promotion committee considered his case and declared that he did not cross efficiency bar and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 03-07-2002. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected through letter, dated 10-07-2002. Hence, the writ petition. He contends that his services, immediately preceding the year of assessment of efficiency bar, was clear and clean and still the benefit was not extended to him. He contends that when two employees similarly placed like him were accorded such treatment, the superior authority reviewed its decision. The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the performance of the petitioner five years preceding the efficiency bar, the age of efficiency bar, was taken into account and on finding that he was imposed two punishments, it was declared that he did not cross the efficiency bar. The cases of two members of the services by name P.Rajan and K.K.Reddy are distinguished from that of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. In the year 1990, occasion arose for assessment of the performance of the petitioner vis-à-vis efficiency bar. The respondents have taken into account, the fact that the petitioner was awarded punishment of censure in 1987 and punishment of withholding of one increment in 1998, as basis for declaring that he did not cross efficiency bar. The particulars furnished by them disclose that the performance of the petitioner for the years 1988 and 1989 was assessed as “good” and in three years prior thereto i.e., 1985, 1986 and 1987, it was assessed as average/satisfactory. The Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 25 prescribes the procedure for assessment as to efficiency bar. According to Sub-Rule 2.2 thereof, the performance for such a consideration has to be undertaken in the months of January, April, July and October. The Rule further directs that confidential reports of the employee for immediately preceding year shall constitute the basis for such assessment. If that is taken into account, the performance of the petitioner in the year 1989 becomes relevant. The record discloses that no punishment was awarded to him and on the other hand, his performance was assessed to be “good”. Therefore, the respondents ought not to have declared him as not having crossed efficiency bar. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the petitioner shall be treated as having crossed the efficiency bar in the year 1989 itself. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 23-09-2010 Prv