IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3313 of 2009. Date of decision: 27.08.2011 ___________________________________________________ Padam Chand …. Petitioner. Versus The State of HP & Others .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate for respondent No.3. ______________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner prays that the action of the respondents in not reconsidering him for the post of Dy.S.P in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 is not justified and he should have been promoted. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the ACRs of the petitioner have not been properly appraised by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). ___________ Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. 2 2. The ACRs of the petitioner have been placed on record. I have personally gone through the ACRs which are attached as Annexure P-11. The first ACR which is relevant for our purpose, while considering the case of the petitioner for the promotion in the year 1995, is the ACR for the year 1992-1993 in which the Officer has been graded, and under various columns his work has been found satisfactory or good. While giving the final grading, it is stated that in case the Officer takes interest in work, he can be a good Police Officer. He should however, make more efforts and is required to work hard. The second ACR is for the year 1993- 1994 in which various columns have been graded as satisfactory and the final grading is “he is just an average police officer”. The last ACR relevant is for the period 1.4.1994 to 22.12.1994 in which again in all the columns the assessment is satisfactory and the final assessment by the Reporting Officer is that “he is just an average police officer”. No doubt, the final overall grading has been upgraded to good by the Deputy Commissioner, but this has been done without making any change in the main entries. If the main entries are not changed, then at best the 3 petitioner can be taken as satisfactory employee and nothing more. Therefore, in the year 1995 two reports would be of satisfactory or average police officer and one would be of above average. It is for the DPC to decide whether such police officer is to be promoted or not and this Court cannot interfere in the assessment of the DPC, unless it is found to be grossly unfair or totally against the record. This cannot be said in the present case. As far as the reports for the subsequent years are concerned, the petitioner has been promoted in the year 1998 by taking into consideration the improvement made by him in the subsequent years. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge August 27, 2011. (Krn Guleria)