IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1688 of 2002 (S/B) Subedar. .……… Petitioner Versus U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. & others. .………. Respondents. None for the parties. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) None for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with two prayers. The first prayer of the petitioner is, that he should be considered for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer (in a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee, convened for a date immediately after the filing of the instant writ petition). Since no such direction was issued by this Court, requiring the consideration of the claim of the petitioner by the Departmental Promotion Committee, it is apparent that the solitary prayer made at the time of filing of the instant writ petition had been rendered infructuous. 3. In order to keep the instant writ petition alive, the petitioner moved an amendment application, which was allowed by an order dated 25.07.2003. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was allowed to raise one further prayer, namely, the issuance of a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to cross his efficiency bar w.e.f. 1998. At the present juncture, the only surviving prayer is the one noticed herein above. 4. Insofar as the surviving prayer is concerned, it is necessary to advert to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, and more particularly, to paragraph 4 thereof. Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit is accordingly being extracted hereunder: “4. That the contents of paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. The true facts are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Accountant Assistant on 07.07.1979 under the schedule caste category, thereafter being the member of reserved category, 2 the petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Accountant w.e.f. 05.08.1985, another promotion was given to the petitioner to the post of Accountant on 25.11.1987. The petitioner was again promoted to the post of Assistant Accountant Officer Grade-II w.e.f. 23.04.1999 and to the post of Assistant Accountant Officer Grade-I w.e.f. 11.06.1997. During the entire service period the petitioner was awarded adverse entry in the year 1986-87, 87-88, 01.04.1997 to 31.01.1998 and 01.04.1998 to 31.07.1998. The Photocopies of the adverse entries duly communicated to the petitioner is being filed herewith as ANNEXURE NO. C.A.-1 to this counter affidavit. Against the adverse entries awarded in the year 1986-87 the petitioner did not file any representation. The representation filed against the adverse entries awarded in the year 1987-88 and 01.04.1997 to 31.01.1998 has been rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 01.10.1990 and 16.08.2001. The Photocopies of the order rejecing the representation against the adverse entries is being filed to herewith as ANNEXURE NO. C.A.-2 to this counter affidavit. The representation made by the petitioner against the adverse entry awarded for the period of 01.04.1998 to 31.08.1998 is under consideration. Apart from this the petitioner also censure entry in a service book vide order dated 08.01.2003, order dated 09.02.1998, 21.12.1998 and 22.04.1999. The Photocopies of the order awarding censure entries are being filed herewith as ANNEXURE NO. C.A.-3 COLLY. to this counter affidavit.” 5. The factual position (depicted in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit extracted herein above) has not been disputed at the hands of the petitioner, inasmuch as no rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. Thus viewed, it is apparent that a large number of adverse Annual Confidential Reports had been recorded against the petitioner for the period from 1986-1987 to 1998, i.e. the date with reference to which the petitioner is claiming the right to be allowed to cross the efficiency bar. In view of the aforesaid adverse Annual Confidential Reports, which had been communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner’s claim to cross efficiency bar, as of right, is not sustainable in law. 6. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 13.04.2010 13.04.2010 G