Civil Writ Petition No. 14184 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14184 of 1989 Date of Decision: 15-12-2009 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Kaushik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: None for the parties. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The petitioner claims a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to cross the efficiency bar on due date i.e. 1.4.1987 by setting aside Annexure P.2 declining the grant of efficiency bar. The petitioner was recruited as Veterinary Surgeon on 26.8.1970 in the pay scale of Rs.350-800/-. The petitioner crossed first efficiency bar on 1.8.1977. Vide order dated 2.6.1978 the pay of the petitioner was raised from Rs.500/- to Rs.530/- per month. The pay scale of the post of Veterinary Surgeon was revised with effect from 20.2.1979 to Rs.400-1100/-. The petitioner was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on the due date i.e. 1.4.1980 and his pay was increased Civil Writ Petition No. 14184 of 1989 [2] to Rs.1150/-. The pay scale of Veterinary Surgeon was revised with effect from 1.1.1986 to Rs.2000-3500/- in terms of the notification dated 29.4.1987 and the pay of the petitioner was increased to Rs.2825/- with effect from 1.4.1986. Subsequently, vide notification dated 6.10.1988, the pay scale of the post was revised retrospectively to Rs.2000-.3500/-. The only changes in the revised scale were that the efficiency bar stage was raised from Rs.2300/- to Rs.2900/- and that the rate of increment between Rs.2900/- and Rs.3200/- was increased from Rs.75/- to Rs.100/-. Vide order dated 12.9.1989, the petitioner was not granted efficiency bar at the stage of Rs.2900/- on 1.4.1987 as well as on 1.4.1988. It is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that efficiency bar can be withheld only by reference to adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports. He has been conveyed adverse entries in the year 1987-88 vide order dated 27.6.1988. It is contended that the said report is irrelevant for considering the crossing of efficiency bar on 1.4.1987. Vide order Annexure P.2, the efficiency bar was declined for the reason that for the relevant period, the service record of the petitioner has not been found upto the prescribed standard. In the written statement it has been pointed out that the confidential report from the year 1980-81 to 1986-87 was to be examined and out of the seven reports, 50% of the report should be Civil Writ Petition No. 14184 of 1989 [3] good or above, but only three reports were good and rest four reports were average or below average. It has been also averred that three adverse entries for the years 1982-83, 1984-85 and 1987-88 were communicated vide Annexures Rs.2 to R.4. The detail of confidential reports has been enumerated in para No. 13 of the written statement. The averments made in the written statement have not been controverted. In view of the averments made in the written statement, it is apparent that three confidential reports of the petitioners i.e., for the years 1983-84, 1985-86, 1986-87, are good and four confidential reports are average and the report for the year 1987-88 is below average. In terms of the Instructions, 50% of the reports have to be good before an employee can be permitted to cross the efficiency bar. In view of the aforesaid reports in the service record of the petitioner, the petitioner has rightly not been permitted to cross the efficiency bar with effect from 1.4.1987 and 1.4.1988. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 15-12-2009 ds