Civil Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Ramesh Chander Dutt ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had filed this writ petition to challenge order dated 10.09.1990, whereby the petitioner was prematurely retired. The petitioner was employed as Teacher and promoted as Headmaster after 20 years of service. The petitioner had continued to perform his duties with dedication and devotion. His results were always good, to which reference was made in the writ petition. Having made reference to the results, the petitioner claimed that he is seen to be a good Administrator as well as a good teacher. However, the petitioner conceded that in the year 1983-84, he was given average report on 27.04.1985. As per the petitioner this report could not be considered a bad report. For the year 1982-83, the petitioner was given a report, which is as under:- “He is a good headmaster for his administrative duties, but extremely poor in results.” Civil Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 2 Reports for the year 1984-85 and 1985-86 were not communicated. The petitioner, accordingly, would plead that these reports are deemed to be good reports. On 31.07.1986, the petitioner was conveyed the order stopping him at the efficiency bar w.e.f. 01.11.1985. This was on the basis of result of the school where he was posted as Headmaster during 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979- 80, 1980-81 and 1981-82. The petitioner made a representation against the same, which remained unattended. The petitioner submitted another representation on 04.12.1986, which also did not receive any reply. The petitioner, accordingly, would challenge the order directing stopping him to cross the efficiency bar, which he would term as not understandable. The petitioner has made a reference to the result for the subsequent years to plead that the general result in the school were good but still the impugned order dated 10.09.1990 was passed, prematurely retiring the petitioner on completion of 55 years of age. The primary ground advanced to challenge this order was based on the judgment given by a Division Bench of this Court in the case titled as K.K.Vaid versus State of Haryana 1990 (1) SLR 1. As pleaded, Rule 3.26 (D) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I Part I (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), which was relied upon in this case, to prematurely retire the petitioner, was struck down in the case of K.K. Vaid (supra). The petitioner had accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the said order basing his case on the ratio of law laid down in K.K.Vaid's case (supra). The question of law pressed into service in this writ petition is also to this effect that the Rule which was relied upon to prematurely retire the petitioner had Civil Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 3 been struck down. The written statement was filed on behalf of the State, in response to notice of motion. It is stated that the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years on 16.03.1990. His service record for the last 10 years was seen. The petitioner failed to maintain the requisite performance as far as his efficiency was concerned. As per the instructions issued by the government, 70% of the ACRs for the last 10 years should be above average. Since the petitioner did not fulfill this condition, action was taken against him under the provisions of Rule 3.26 (D) of the rules. The details of the 10 years Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner have also been annexed with the reply as Annexure R- 1. This would indicate that out of 10 reports, 5 reports for the year 1980-81, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1987-88 were of average grading. Report for the year 1982-83 was below average. Three reports for the year 1981-82, 1986-87 and 1989-90 were 'very good' whereas one report for the year 1988-89 was outstanding. From this, it is seen that the petitioner did not have 70% of the good reports. The adverse remarks have also been recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner, which were duly communicated to him as can be seen from Annexures R-2 to R-4. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the petitioner was rightly retired prematurely. The main submission which impressed this Court to issue notice of motion and in admitting the writ petition was the fact that the relevant rule had been struck down by this Court in the case of K.K. Vaid's (supra). Learned State counsel would refer to Full Bench Civil Writ Petition No. 463 of 1991 4 decision in the case of Daya Nand versus versus State of Haryana 1995 (2) SCT 433 where K.K. Vaid's case (supra) has been overruled as not laying down good law. Infact, the Full Bench was constituted on a reference made to see the correctness of the view expressed by the Division Bench in K.K. Vaid's case (supra). Thus, the main basis on which the arguments were built, would not remain in this case. The relevant Rule i.e. 3.26 (D) would clearly be available and had been so utilized. The plea raised in the writ petition is thus without merit as the issue stands resolved by Full Bench decision referred to above. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. April 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE