1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3326/1995 Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order :: 6th April, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. M.S.Singhvi ] Mr. Vinay Kothari] for the petitioner. Mr. M.A.Siddiqui for the respondents. .... By this petition for writ a challenge is given to denial for promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests against the vacancies of the years 1992-93 and 1993-94, by the petitioner, a member of Rajasthan Forest Services created under the Rajasthan Forest Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1962”. As per the petitioner, the respondents while considering his candidature, considered the adverse remarks entered into his Annual Confidential Reports either not communicated to him or the remarks already expunged. The petitioner became member of Rajasthan Forest Services in the year 1981 and as per the Rules of 1962 while holding the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests he was having a right to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy 2 Conservator of Forests. The criteria for making such promotion as per Rule 30 of the Rules of 1962 is seniority-cum-merit, however, as per the petitioner, the respondents denied promotion to him by taking into consideration the adverse remarks for the year 1991-92 though the same were expunged by the competent authority under an order dated 21.3.1993. As stated by the respondents in reply to writ petition, the candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests against the vacancies of the years 1992-93 and 1993-94, however, the departmental promotion committee did not find him fit to accord promotion in view of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports relating to the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92. It is also stated by the respondents that in the year 1994-95, no vacancy relating to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests was available, however, in the year 1995-96 candidature of the petitioner was considered and promotion was accorded to him as Deputy Conservator of Forests. A rejoinder to the reply is given by the petitioner stating therein that as a matter of fact no adverse remarks for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were communicated to him. 3 This Court on 18.3.2009 directed the respondents to make available entire dossier relating to the petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and also minutes of the meeting of departmental promotion committee in which candidature of the petitioner was considered but not found suitable for promotion. The respondents have accordingly shown me the entire Annual Performance Appraisal dossier of the petitioner, from perusal of which I am satisfied that as a matter of fact the adverse remarks relating to the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were never conveyed to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that for both the years referred above general assessment of the petitioner was made as a “good officer”. However, some suggestive remarks were made regarding his punctuality and attitude. So far as adverse remarks for the year 1991- 92 are concerned, those were expunged by the competent authority under an order dated 21.3.1993. In view of the factual position stated above, the remarks of the years 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92 could not have been taken into consideration while considering petitioner's candidature for promotion. I have also examined minutes of the departmental promotion committee that met to consider candidature of eligible officers for promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests, for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94. In the year 1992-93 the candidature of 4 the petitioner was considered by the respondents, however, the same was not found fit. While making a note that the petitioner was not found suitable for promotion, the departmental promotion committee has not prescribed any reason. Nothing is recorded by the committee regarding material adverse to the petitioner that ultimately resulted in denial of promotion to him. Same is the position in the minutes of the meeting of the departmental promotion committee that considered candidature of the petitioner against the vacancies of the year 1993-94. True it is, the reasons for not founding a person suitable for promotion are not required to be communicated to the employee concerned, however, those reasons must be recorded in the minutes by the committee competent. In the instant matter neither the adverse remarks for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were communicated to the petitioner nor the departmental promotion committee recorded reasons for denying promotion to the petitioner. As said above, the general assessment of the petitioner for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 was assessed as “good” and, therefore, I do not find any just reason to hold the petitioner a person not suitable for promotion. The remarks those are treated as adverse by the departmental promotion committee are purely suggestive. What it appears that the remarks relating to the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 were not communicated 5 to the petitioner as general assessment of the petitioner was made as a “good officer” and the remarks mentioned therein were simply suggestive. For the reasons whatever stated above, I am inclined to accept this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Deputy Conservator of Forests against the vacancies for the years 1992-93 and 1993-94 afresh without treating remarks made in Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 as adverse. The petitioner's assessment for the years referred above be treated as “good”. If the petitioner is otherwise found suitable, promotion be accorded to him on the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests. In the event of promotion, the petitioner shall be entitled for all incidental and consequential benefits except the actual payment of the arrears of pay. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.