IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.866 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 25.1.2010 Manoj Kumar Jindal. -----Appellant Vs. Ms. Rajni Mahajan & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the appellant. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition of respondent No.1 against her reversion from the post of Lecturer by cancelling her promotion. 2. The appellant and respondent No.3 were serving as Lecturers and were both eligible for the next higher promotion post of Senior Lecturer which became available on 31.5.2006. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committed (DPC) was held on 15.3.2007, wherein respondent No.3 was given promotion. She joined on 17.3.2007. After her joining, a Show Cause Notice for withdrawal of promotion was served on her and order dated 8.11.2007 was passed, withdrawing the promotion. The reason given for doing so was that she did not have the requisite bench LPA No.866 of 2009 mark in view of her overall grading being average for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. Respondent No.3 challenged the said order on the ground that she had fulfilled the requisite benchmark, if ACRs for 5 years preceding the date of consideration were taken into account. The appellant opposed the writ petition by submitting that as on 31.5.2006, when the vacancy arose, respondent No.3 did not have the requisite benchmark. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that under the relevant instructions dated 29.12.2000 and 16.9.2001, ACRs for 5 years preceding the date of consideration were to be taken into account and not for the period preceding the accrual of vacancy. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that finding of learned Single Judge that ACRs for 5 years preceding the date of consideration are to be taken into account, was not correct. He relies on instructions dated 27.4.1982 in support of his submission. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The instructions, Annexure P-2, relied upon by learned Single Judge do not contain any stipulation that ACRs for 5 years preceding the ‘date of vacancy’ alone are to be considered. The instructions can also not be held to be in conflict with the instructions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, to the effect that 2 LPA No.866 of 2009 occurrence of vacancy is the date for determining the eligibility. Eligibility has been laid down in the Punjab Services (Appointment by Promotion) Rules, 1962 namely educational qualifications and experience, which admittedly respondent No.3 possessed on the date of accrual of vacancy. ACRs are taken into account for evaluation of comparative merit which is to be on the date of consideration. Such evaluation is different from eligibility which respondent No.3 did possess even on the date of vacancy. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on judgment of this Court in Dr. Raj Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab 2002(2) SCT 243, wherein the question considered was of acquisition of qualification, for which relevant date was held to be the date of vacancy. We are not concerned with acquisition of qualification, as admittedly, respondent No.3 had the necessary qualification even on the date of accrual of the vacancy. The judgment does not help the appellant. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 25, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3