IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9670 of 1991 Date of decision: 14.09.2011 Manohar Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 13.07.1990, Annexure P-6, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.03.1977. Having been appointed on 04.08.1964, the services of the petitioner were allocated to the State of Haryana on its re- organization. The petitioner subsequently qualified AMIE examination in the year 1968. The petitioner, accordingly, filed the writ petition seeking direction to promote him to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted. That writ petition, however, was dismissed on 06.02.1980. The petitioner filed the Special Leave Petition against this order, which was statedly pending at the time of filing the present writ petition. The petitioner subsequently was charge-sheeted under Rule 7 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1952 on 19.05.1976 and order terminating him was passed on 15.02.1983. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same and the order of termination was set aside on 09.01.1989. Thus, the petitioner remained out of service from the year 1983 to 1989. Civil Writ Petition No. 9670 of 1991 -2- The petitioner was due to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.03.1977. After making reference to his Annual Confidential Reports, the petitioner relies upon instructions dated 29.04.1979 to plead that the cases of crossing efficiency bar should have been decided within a period of six months. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition with the grievance that his case for crossing of efficiency bar has not been considered in accordance with law. The writ petition stands admitted. In the mean time, the petitioner has also been compulsorily retired in the year 1991. Mr. Rathee has made reference to service record of the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure R-1. The service record of the petitioner generally is average, below average, fair or poor except for some odd reports, when in the year 1970-71, he was assessed as 'above average' and in report from July 1978, December 1978, where he was assessed as 'good'. There are large number of integrity doubtful reports as can be noticed from Annexure-R1. However, the service record of the petitioner for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 is good. That would have no relevance as the petitioner claims for crossing efficiency bar is w.e.f. 1977. These reports would not be relevant for deciding the issue. In view of the nature of the reports as well as the facts that the petitioner has been compulsorily retired from the service, the prayer made in the writ petition is found without any merit. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 14, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE