HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12513 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2011 **** Janak Mehta . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Dr. ML Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 25.06.2010 (Annexure P10) whereby her representation for the grant of promotion as Principal (School cadre) with effect from the date her juniors were promoted, has been turned down. The relevant part of the impugned order reads as follows:- And whereas in view of the instructions of the Government of Punjab in the Department of Personnel read with the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, the posts of Principal falls in Group A Service and according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of these Rules, the minimum benchmark for promotion to CWP No.12513 of 2010.doc - 2 – these posts will be “very good” as per instructions issued by the Government. As per instructions of the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel contained in letter No.4/6/2000-3PPI/13270 dated 06.09.2001, 12 marks are required for promotion to a Group-A post. And whereas the gist of last five ACRs in the case of Smt. Janak Mehta, Headmistress is reflected in the table given below and on the basis of these ACRs the total benchmarks work out to be as given in column No.8 of the said table:- Senior- ity No. Name Year 2002-03 Year 2003-04 Year 2004-05 Year 2005-06 Year 2006-07 Total marks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 855 Janak Mehta Average Good Excellent Good Good 11 And whereas from the above table, it is clear that in the case of Smt. Janak Mehta, Headmistress, the benchmarks work out to be 11 and as such she was considered ineligible for promotion to the post of Principal Group A post and the petitioners name was not recommended for promotion in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee held on 27.05.2008.” 2 CWP No.12513 of 2010.doc - 3 – (2). The petitioner has raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, it is argued that since the DPC was convened on 27.05.2008, the ACR for the year 2007-08 also ought to have been taken into consideration. The second contention is that the instructions dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P11) have been relied upon to assess the ‘suitability’ despite these Instructions having been kept in abeyance vide subsequent instructions dated 10.07.2001 and 19.07.2001 (Annexure P12 & P13, respectively). (3). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any substance in the petitioner’s claim. I say so for the reason that the DPC in its meeting held on 27.05.2008 uniformly considered the confidential reports of last five years, without any pick and choose. The ACR for the year 2007-08 was not rightly taken into account as it had not attained finality by that time. The ACR for the year 2007- 08 was for the period upto 31.03.2008. If there were adverse remarks in a given case the same could be conveyed after 31.03.2008 only. The affect official has to be given a reasonable period to represent. The Competent Authority also is not expected to reject or accept the representation mechanically. The ACR thus would not have attained finality by 27.05.2008. The DPC therefore rightly took a conscious decision to consider the ACRs for 3 CWP No.12513 of 2010.doc - 4 – the period upto the year 2006-2007. The same criteria has been applied in the case of the petitioner as well. (4). The second plea that the DPC considered the suitability in terms of the instructions dated 29.12.2000 (Annexure P11) is factually incorrect. The relevant part of the impugned order reproduced above reveals that the DPC considered the suitability in the light of the instructions dated 06.09.2001 namely the revised instructions in terms whereof, an official was required to earn a minimum benchmark of 12 marks for adjudging his suitability. The petitioner who got only 11 marks even as per the revised criteria contained in the instructions dated 06.09.2001 thus failed to achieve the minimum benchmark. (5). No fault can be found with the decision taken by the DPC. (6). Dismissed. 25.08.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 4