WP(C) 7384/2001 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY 1. Heard Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. A lso heard Mr. J Roy, learned standing counsel who appears for the respondent Hin dustan Paper Corporation Limited (HPC Limited). 2. The present petition has been filed making a grievance of denial of prom otion to the petitioner to the post of Manager in the promotion exercise carried out in the year 2001. A further grievance of undeserved performance appraisal r eport as good in stead of the expected very good made for the year 1999-200 in respect of the writ petitioner have also been made leading to denial of prom otion to him. 3. The respondent HPC Limited declared a Promotion Policy for officers who were stagnating for a long period in a single post whereby under clause 14 of th e Promotion Policy, the following policy decision was notified: 14. MERIT INCREMENT AND STAGNATION a) Based on merit position and recommendation of DPC if promotion of a Very Good performer, i.e. consistent performance appraisal rating of 180 or more in any Executive Post for 5 years upto the level of Senior Manager is not possible due to lack of vacancy, the competent authority may consider grant of one merit increment to him to be absorbed against fitment benefit on regular promotion to the next higher post. b) If the promotion stagnation persists for those professionally qualified with outstanding performance upto 5th year or very good performance upto 6th yea r in the post of Deputy Manager, the incumbent will be considered by the DPC for the next higher post as personal to him. 4. The petitioner was apprised very good for 5 consecutive years starting f rom 1994-95 till 1998-99. But since very good was needed consecutively for 6 yea rs for getting the stagnation promotion declared by the Promotion Policy noted a bove, it was necessary for the petitioner to also get very good for his service performance in the 6th year i.e. the year 1999-2000. However, in the year 1999-2000, the petitioner was assessed good by the reporting officer. Thus since the petitioner did not have very good in the 6th year unlike in the previous five years, he was denied promotion when the promotion exercises were made in the year 2000 and respondent Nos.7 to 9 were given promotion to th e rank of Manager denying promotion to the writ petitioner who was senior to all the aforesaid 3 respondents. 5. Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that performance appraisal of the petitioner for the year 1999-2000 was done by a Reporting Officer under whom the petitioner served only for a period of 4 mont hs 24 days from 1.9.1999 to 22.1.2000 and on the basis of appraisal made by such a Reporting Officer who had limited exposure to the works of the petitioner, hi s appraisal ought not to have been made the basis for grading the petitioner as good since such grading does not correctly reflect the performance of the petiti oner during the year 1999-2000. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner in the previous 5 years before 1999-2000 was graded as very good and was conscious of an opportu nity for getting the stagnation promotion after getting another very good apprai sal by working diligently and if he could have been graded by a Reporting Office r who had the fullest exposure to the performance of the petitioner, the grading of the petitioner would certainly have been very good and not good as has been given. 6. It is also submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that as per the pr oforma of performance and appraisal report of officers under the HPC Limited and the mode and method of appraisal indicated in the proforma appraisal system fol lowed by the HPC Limited, the appraisal made by the Reporting officer are requir ed to be reviewed by a Reviewing Officer and only after assessment by the Review ing officer of the appraisal report made by the Reporting Officer and appropriat e correction of appraisal where necessary, a promotion exercise is needed to be undertaken. But in the instant case, the Review appraisal with regard to the perform ance of the writ petitioner was sought to be carried out only in the month of Ju ly, 2001, whereas promotion exercise which led to denial of promotion to the pet itioner and giving of promotion to the private respondents were carried out in t he year 2000 itself. Accordingly it is contended that if the respondent HPC Limi ted would have carried out the Review discussion of the Reporting Officer’s appr aisal, the petitioner perhaps would have been assessed as very good and he would not have been denied promotion, as he had very good in all 5 previous years pri or to 1999-2000. 7. Mr. J Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent HPC Limited subm its that during the year 1999-2000, there were several changes of Supervising Of ficers of the petitioner. As for instance the Reporting officer from April, 1999 to August, 1999 went on voluntary retirement. The next officer supervised the w orks of the petitioner from 1.9.1999 to 22.1.2000. The final assessment was made by a third Reporting officer, who appraised the performance of the petitioner f rom January, 2000 to 31.3.2000. It is also contended by the counsel that the Rep orting Officer for the period 1.9.1999 to 22.1.2000 had more than 4 months expos ure to the works of the petitioner. He submits that as per the norms followed in the HPC Limited, the appraisal made with regard to the writ petitioner by such Reporting Officer who had exposure to over 4 months of the petitioner’s performa nce, can be accepted and appraisal made by such Reporting Officer cannot be reje cted only on the ground that the Reporting Officer did not have exposure to work s of the petitioner for all the 12 months of the year (1999-2000) of appraisal. 8. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent HPC Limited that a Rev iew discussion was sought to be made with regard to the appraisal report of the petitioner, but during the Review discussion exercise carried out on 3.7.2001, t he petitioner refused to put his signature to the Review discussion minutes and as such he has no right to claim any relief with regard to the appraisal whereby he has been assessed as good for the year 1999-2000. 9. It is further submitted by Mr. J Roy that assessment of good is not an a dverse assessment and there is no need to communicate such appraisal to the conc erned employee. 10. Responding to the counter arguments made on behalf of the HPC Limited, M r. B Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Apex Court’s decision reported in (1996) 2 SCC 363 in the case of U.P. JAL NIGAM AND OTHERS V S. PRABHAT CHANDRA JAIN AND OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court was examining the d owngradation of the respondent employee to ’satisfactory’ which appraisal not be ing adverse was not compulsorily communicable to the affected employee. In U. P. Jal Nigam (Supra), the Supreme Court held that reason for down gradation must b e recorded in the personal file and employee concerned must be informed of the c hange in the form of advise of an appraisal, which may not strictly be adverse a nd not compulsorily communicable. 11. It is also seen in the present case that there has been a change of prom otion policy followed by the HPC Limited and as per the changed promotion policy , declared and accepted on 28.9.2005, the petitioner has since been promoted to the cadre of Manager with effect from 30.6.2007. But the claim in the instant case is for promotion of the petitioner wit h effect from the year 2000 when the juniors to the petitioner were promoted bec ause of appraisal grading of the petitioner as good instead of very good for the year 1999-2000. 12. I find that there are various stages of appraisal of the performance of employees and as per the notified policy and the format of performance appraisal ; the appraisal made by the Reporting Officer is required to be reviewed by the Reviewing Officer. The appraisal format is also required to be completed every y ear before 30th April for the year in question. Thus only after a review, the ap praisal made can be used for purpose of promotion. In the instant case, the respondent HPC Limited may perhaps be justified in relying on the appraisal made by the Reporting Officer, under whom the petit ioner worked only for a period of 4 months and 24 days without being exposed to the works of the petitioner for the entire 12 months of the concerned year. But the said appraisal was not thereafter subjected to Review discussion before the impugned promotion exercise carried out in the year 2000. In fact, a Review disc ussion was attempted only on 3.7.2001 after the petitioner submitted representat ions requesting for a review of appraisal made by the Reporting Officer. 13. If a Review discussion on the appraisal of a Reporting Officer with rega rd to an employee is necessary to be made, obviously such assessment ought to be made before the promotion exercise is carried out and not after the promotion i s considered on the basis of Reporting Officer’s appraisal without subjecting su ch appraisal to a Review discussion. 14. In the instant case, the Review discussion was attempted to be made only after the promotion was considered and made. This obviously has resulted in inj ustice to the petitioner. During the review discussion, there could have been an upward review of the appraisal made by the Reporting Officer to very good in wh ich case, the petitioner would have been entitled to be given promotion as per t he promotion policy in force since in the previous 5 years prior to the year 199 9-2000, the writ petitioner was continuously assesses as very good. 15. It is further seen that assessment of good by itself is not adverse and such appraisal may not require any communication. But in the facts of the instan t case, the assessment of good has led to denial of promotion to the writ petiti oner and the petitioner has suffered adverse consequences because of appraisal a s good in the 6th year (1999-2000). Having regard to the previous 5 years appraisal as very good, the respon dent authorities ought to have permitted a Review discussion on the assessment o f good made by the Reporting Officer and if the assessment of good was found to be justified, should have informed the petitioner of such assessment since he wa s adversely affected and promotion was denied to him by such assessment. 16. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the res pondent HPC Limited to have a Review discussion on the appraisal of good made by the Reporting Officer with regard to the performance of the writ petitioner for the year 1999-2000. If such process of Review discussion leads to upgradation o f the appraisal from good to very good for the year 1999-2000, the petitioner in such event would be entitled to the benefit of promotion given to his colleague s i.e. respondent Nos.7 to 9, who were juniors to the petitioner and who were gi ven promotion to the post of Manager because they fulfilled the promotion criter ia laid down by the HPC Limited as per Clause 14(a) and 14(b) of the Promotion P olicy. 17. Since the petitioner has now been given promotion to the cadre of Manage r with effect from 1.7.2007, in the event of a positive Review assessment in fav our of the writ petitioner in the year 1999-2000, the promotion subsequently giv en in July, 2007 to the writ petitioner should relate back retrospectively to th e date, when the respondent Nos.7 to 9 have been given such promotion. Ordered a ccordingly. 18. This writ petition stands allowed as above. No cost.