IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.5493 of 2008 Date of Decision : May 18, 2010 Dr. Y. D. Bansal, …Petitioner. Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. J. P. Upadhyaya, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R. Bisht & Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. Advocate Generals. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). Petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 5.9.1997. 2. In terms of letter dated 5.3.1997 petitioner was communicated the following entries made in his ACR : “Overall assessment of performance and qualities. Overall performance Fair Tends to evade responsibility.” 3. He made a detailed representation (Annexure D/1) which stands rejected by the respondents in terms of impugned order dated 5.9.1997 which, as translated by the petitioner, reads as under:- “To Dr. Y. D. Bansal, Senior Lecturer, (Swasthvritta) RG Govt. Ayu College, Paprola, Distt. Kangra (HP) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Subject: ADVERSE REMARKS IN ACR OF Dr. Y.D. BANSAL, Sr. Lecturer of SWASTHVRITTA DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR 1995-96. Memo, With reference to your representation No. GAC/SWA/ 1997-98 dt. 31/3/1997 on the abovecited subject. The Govt. has decided after consideration that adverse remarks entered in your ACR for the year 1995-96 would stand in same way. (Sic Should be remains as it is.) / Additional Director Ayurveda, H.P. Shimla Dated 5/9/1997 No. above. (1) Copy to:- The Administrator, RG Govt. Ayurvedic College Paprola, Dist. Kangra (HP) – for information. (2) Copy to:- Abovesaid in confidential file. Sd/- Additional Director Ayurveda, H.P. Shimla” 4. Undoubtedly, this order does not assign any reason. Even the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation have not been dealt with at all. In these circumstances, the order dated 5.9.1997 is quashed. The respondents are directed to pass a fresh order by assigning detailed reasons. 5. Material already placed on record by the petitioner shall be considered and dealt with. My attention has also been invited to various decisions of the Apex Court as also the High Courts. It shall be open for the petitioner to also place additional material if need so arises. I have not dealt with the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition. It shall be open for the petitioner to urge the same before the appropriate authority. 6. Liberty reserved to approach the Court if need so arises. 3 7. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. Copy dasti. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. May 18, 2010 (rana)