Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 Date of decision: 11.9.2009 Jawahar Lal Jain ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Surinder K. Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana ***** S.D.ANAND, J. 1. The essential grievance of the petitioner, who had been initially appointed as a Section Officer on 12.7.1968 and re-designated as Junior Engineer in 1985, is that the grant of selection grade had been unjustly denied to him; which it been granted to two named juniors to him inspite of the fact that he had throughout rendered meritorious service and “no adverse remarks has ever been communicated to the petitioner during the long period of 23 years of service.” The further grievance of the petitioner, in the context, is that every time his juniors were granted selection grade, he addressed a grievance communication but respondents never ever responded thereto. 2. The respondents asserted validity of the order denying selection grade to the petitioner on an averment that his service record did Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 -2- **** not measure upto the benchmark indicated by the governing instructions dated 13.4.1972 (Annexure R-1), as per which an official must acquire atleast 50% good record before he becomes eligible for consideration for the grant of selection grade. It was averred that the petitioner had been denied crossing of efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1978 on the basis of his record and that fact had been duly communicated to him. Respondents denied having received any appeals dated 20.2.1982 and 12.5.1982 which were averred to have been filed by the petitioner at the time certain juniors to him were granted selection grade. It was conceded by the respondents that the appeal received from the petitioner was dated 16.12.1987 which was rejected, vide order dated 11.8.1988. It was averred, in the context, that yet another representation made by the petitioner in the year 1988 had been rejected by respondent no.1, vide order dated 24.11.1988. 3. In support of the averment about the quality of service record which was taken into consideration while denying selection grade to the petitioner, the respondents placed implicit reliance upon Annexure R-3 which is representative of the summary of ACRs in respect of the petitioner for the period 10.7.1968 to 1976-77. That reliance is in the context of denial of the selection grade to him in the year 1978 when two named juniors to his had been granted selection grade. 4. That the petitioner has since been granted selection grade with effect from 19.4.1982 on his having acquired the required quality of service record is beyond the pale of controversy. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the uncommunicated adverse ACR entries could not have been relied upon by the respondents to deny the grant of selection grade to the petitioner. In support of the averment, reliance was placed upon Dev Dutt Vs. Union of Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 -3- **** India and others (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 725. 6. Though there can be obviously no dispute with the proposition of law evident from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Dev Dutt's case (supra) it, requires pertinent notice that facts apparent from pleadings-based averment in this case are distinguishable. In the course of the petition, the petitioner had made a precise averment that no adverse entry had ever been communicated to him. There also was an averment, in the context, that he had made a mention of this fact in the course of his representation dated 20.2.1982 which he filed when three juniors of his were granted selection grade while denying the same to him. 7. In the corresponding para of the written statement, the respondents offered a categorical denial about the receipt of any appeal dated 20.2.1982. Interestingly enough, the petitioner opted to refrain from filing a replication to the written statement. There is, thus, no denial of the averment made by the respondents about the non receipt of averred appeal dated 20.2.1982. In the context, it may also be noticed that the respondents also denied having received the averred appeal dated 12.5.1982. There also, there is no replication to deny the correctness of that averment. In the course of the written statement, respondents made a categorical averment that the petitioner was not allowed to cross “the efficiency bar with effect from 1.2.1978 on the basis of his bad record and the petitioner was duly informed in this regard.” He was ignored for granting selection grade for not having 50% good record. For want of replication, it is apparent that the petitioner cannot be heard to argue that he had denied the correctness of the above averments. Even otherwise, the respondents placed on record Annexure R-3 which purports to be the “Summary of ACR in respect of Sh. Jawahr Lal Jain, Junior Engineer Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 -4- **** (Mech.)” It would be evident from a perusal thereof that the functioning of the petitioner had been assessed as average for the period 10.7.1968 to 31.3.1969, 1970-71 to 1973-74 and 1975-76 to 1976-77. For the period from 1.4.1969 to 19.8.1969, the ACR had not been written. For the period 19.8.1969 to 31.3.1970 the report was above average; while good report was earned by him only for the year 1974-75. As per the instructions in the matter of grant of selection grade Annexure R-1, the Government had decided “that only such officials/officers who have obtained atleast 50% 'Good' or 'better' than 'average' reports on the posts from which they are being considered for further promotion, and the overall assessment can be classified as better than 'Average' should be placed the slab of suitable officials/officers.” Those instructions were issued by the State Government “with a view to laying down a definite standard for considering persons suitable for being placed in the slab of suitable officials/officers at the time of making promotion to the selection posts.” 8. A conjunctive perusal of instructions Annexure R-1 and ACR summary Annexure R-3 would leave no manner of doubt that the petitioner had been validly denied selection grade with effect from 26.4.1977 on the basis of the record which did not measure up to the quality standard indicated in Annexure R-1. 9. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the only inference deducible in the circumstances of the case is that the petitioner has not been able to prove a case for the allowance of the petition which (petition) shall stand dismissed accordingly. There shall, however, be no order as to the costs thereof. September 11, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Writ Petition No. 4732 of 1991 -5- ****