RSA No. 3821 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3821 of 2010 Date of Decision: 31.10.2011 *** State of Punjab & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Gurmit Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Respondent No.1 Gurmit Singh filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 17.2.2004 vide which his claim for promotion as Mandal Head Draftsman has been declined and personal junior to him were given promotion on the said post, which according to him was done dehors to the service rules. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that since he failed to get minimum 10 bench marks required for promotion, his claim was rejected and the persons next to him in the seniority list, who fulfilled the criteria, were given promotion. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2008 held that since the plaintiff failed to get minimum benchmarks, therefore, he was rightly declined promotion and as such dismissed the suit. The appellate Court below, on an appeal filed by the plaintiff, however, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and directed the appellants to reconsider the case of the plaintiff for promotion from the date his juniors were given promoted. Dis-satisfied with the same State of Punjab has preferred the instant regular second appeal. RSA No. 3821 of 2010 2 Heard. It is apparent from the records that the only basis for rejection of the claim of the plaintiff for promotion was that he did not get the minimum benchmarks required for the promotion. The benchmarks were calculated on the basis of grades awarded in the annual confidential reports for the last five years. The plaintiff was awarded grading as “very good”, “good”, “good”, “average” and “average” during the last five years preceding the date of promotion and get 3, 2, 2, 1 and 1 marks respectively for that, thereby taking the total marks to 9 as against the required 10 benchmarks. It has also come on record that ACRs for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 wherein the plaintiff was awarded grading “average” each were never communicated to the plaintiff, so as to enable him to represent against the same for up-gradation thereof. This rightly led the appellate Court below to conclude that un-communicated adverse entries in the ACRS cannot be made basis for rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for promotion and accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the appellants to re-consider the case of the plaintiff for promotion. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant regular second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 31,2011 Jiten