IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 1, 2011 Jawahar Lal Jain …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 11.9.2009 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the action of the respondent State denying the grant of selection grade to the petitioner-appellant. 2. The claim made by the petitioner-appellant was that persons junior to him like Sarvshri Tek Chand Garg, K.C. Mittal, Mam Chand Gupta, Jagjit Singh, Davinder Chowdhry and C.K. Jain, have been granted the selection grade in the years 1978, 1982 and 1985 whereas he was granted the selection grade w.e.f. 19.4.1982 in the scale of ` 700-1250, vide order dated 2.3.1983 L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 (R-2). The petitioner-appellant was working on the post of Junior Engineer and crossed his efficiency bar on 1.2.1979. He passed his departmental examination and also qualified his training course at Nilokheri. Learned Single Judge found that the petitioner-appellant was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.2.1978 on account of his adverse record and he was duly intimated in that regard. Accordingly, he was also not granted the selection grade for not having 50% good reports. The summary of his ACRs has also been placed on record (R-3) and the learned Single Judge proceeded to observe as under:- “7. ……Even otherwise, the respondents placed on record Annexure R-3 which purports to be the “Summary of ACR in respect of Sh. Jawahar Lal Jain, Junior Engineer (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, 2 L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 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.” 3. The only argument raised by Mr. Dheeraj Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant was that despite interlocutory orders dated 3.12.2008, 11.12.2008 and 3.9.2009, directing production of service record, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to dispose of the petition without looking into the original record. The aforesaid contention had impressed us and we have called upon the respondent State to produce the original record, vide order dated 18.1.2011. Accordingly, the original record has been produced. In the original record we find that the summary of his ACRs is the same as is given in Annexure R-3, to which reference has been made by the learned Single Judge. The aforesaid summary is set out hereunder to give a bird’s eye view of his service record:- 3 L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 “SUMMARY OF A.C.R. IN RESPECT OF SH. J.L. Jain, JE (Mech) now S.D.E. Sr. No. Period of Report. Grading. Adverse remarks about integrity if any. Remarks 1. 10.7.68 to 31.3.69 Average Fair Adverse remarks conveyed 2. 1969-70 (i) 1.4.69 to 19.8.69 Not written (ii) 19.8.69 to 31.3.70 Good (Above Average) Good 3. 1970-71 (i) 1.4.70 to 17.12.70 Average Good (ii) 17.12.70 to 31.3.71 Average Good 4. 1971-72 (i) 1.4.71 to 8.12.71 Average Good (ii) 9.12.71 to 31.3.72 Average Satisfactory 5. 1972-73 Average Good 6. 1973-74 Average Good 7. 1974-75 Good Good 8. 1975-76 Average Satisfactory 9. 1976-77 Average Satisfactory” 4. It is, thus, evident that the original service record does not mismatch with the summary of ACRs as shown in Annexure R- 3. Once the aforesaid factual position is clear then nothing survives for consideration. Yet, an argument raised by Mr. Jain is that average reports were not conveyed and, therefore, could not 4 L.P.A. No. 1031 of 2010 constitute basis for rejecting the claim of the petitioner-appellant for grant of selection grade. It has come on record that average reports as per instructions were not required to be conveyed. It was only in pursuance of instructions dated 16.8.1983 that average reports were required to be communicated (P-15). Those instructions did not have any retrospective effect. Earlier consolidated instructions regarding the writing of ACR on the work and conduct of the officers clearly stipulated that the average reports were not required to be communicated, as is evident from Explanatory Note (i) below para 10 of those instructions. There is no challenge to the aforesaid instructions either in the writ petition or anywhere else. Therefore, the aforesaid argument would be devoid of any merit and is, thus, liable to be rejected. Thus, we find that the appeal does not merit admission and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 1, 2011 JUDGE PKapoor 5