C.W.P. No.18897 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.18897 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.12.2011 A.K. Singh ....Petitioner Versus N.H.P.C. Ltd. and others ....Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioner, herein, is seeking quashing of the order dated 27.02.2009 (Annexure P-1), vide which, the persons junior to him, have been promoted to the post of Chief (HR) with a further prayer to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Chief (HR) without taking into consideration the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2004-05. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner was considered for promotion along with other candidates in the months of February, 2007, 2008 and 2009 but each time, he was not promoted to the post of Chief (HR). It was further submitted that the petitioner has not been promoted on account of adverse ACR recorded in the year 2004-05, whereas, the said ACR for the period January, 2004 to C.W.P. No.18897 of 2009 2 June, 2004 was missing. As such, the said ACR could not have been taken into consideration. Further, the ACR of the petitioner for the earlier years was very good but for the year 2004-05, the petitioner was down graded as `good'. Since, the same was not conveyed to the petitioner, the same could not have been taken into consideration. Heard. Written statement has been filed. Para 12(i) of the reply reads as under :- 12(i) The contents of ground (i) to the extent that the grading of `Good' in the PAR for the year 2004 and 2005 amounts to adverse entry and that because of the “Good” grading, the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Chief (HR) is wrong and misconstrued and the same are therefore denied. The minimum qualifying marks a candidate is required to secure from PAR of last five years is 46 and the minimum marks, a candidate has to secure from interview is 15 in terms of Rule 12.3 and 12.5 of Promotion Policy and Rules for NHPC Executives respectively. The petitioner though had secured the minimum qualifying marks under PAR but could not get the minimum marks in the interview as contained under Rule 12.5 of Promotion Policy and Rules for NHPC Executives. The promotion to the post beyond Manager i.e. Grade E-5 is based on criteria of merit and seniority take a secondary role. It is not the case of the petitioner that the Corporation has, in any way, violated any of the provisions of applicable promotion rules or the said rules have been discriminately applied qua the petitioner. The petitioner has been considered along with all eligible employees including the respondent No.3 in the year 2009 but could not be promoted as he could not make the promotable grades.” It is not denied by the petitioner that as per the Promotion C.W.P. No.18897 of 2009 3 Policy, applicable to him, the promotion from the post of Senior Manager to Chief is made on the basis of merit with seniority taking secondary role. The Promotion Policy has been placed on record as R-1 by the petitioner. As per 12.4 of the said policy applicable to the petitioner “the DPC will award upto a maximum of 30 marks to each eligible executive for interview in terms of sub-para 10.5, keeping in view the relevant facts defined therein” and as per Clause 12.5, “the qualifying marks required are minimum of 15 marks.” The said clause reads as under :- “12.5 Qualifying marks Marks secured by each eligible candidate in terms of sub-paras 12.2 and 12.4 shall be aggregated. To qualify for promotion each eligible candidate must secure a minimum aggregate of 58.5 marks in case of General Candidates and 54 marks in case of SC/ST Candidates subject to he condition that the candidate must secure a minimum of 15 marks in case of General Candidates and 13 marks in case of SC/ST Candidates in the interview.” Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed. In the reply, it has been specifically stated that the petitioner got less than 15 marks. As such, he was not selected. Therefore, even if the ACR for the year 2004-05 is ignored, it does not help the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had attained the minimum marks required under PAR, and, therefore, he was duly called for the interview. However, it was in the interview that he did not attain the minimum marks required. As such, he was not selected. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 19.12.2011 JUDGE gurpreet