Case: Balbir Singh Bedi Vs. State of Punjab &amp; Others

A. The appellant was appointed as Civil Defence Instructor in the year 1964, and was promoted as Company Commander in October 1968. He was later promoted to the post of District Commander in July 1989. He, then claimed to have become eligible for substantive promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as per the rules applicable.B. The case of the appellant was considered alongwith other eligible candidates, and vide order dated 30.1.2001, a person junior to him (Respondent No. 5), was promoted to the said post after considering his past fiveAnnual Confidential Reports (hereinafter referred to asand other records.C. The appellant made repeated representations in this regard, but the same were not considered. Employees of the other department governed by the same rules, filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4491 and 11011 of 2001 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court contending that their cases for promotion were not to be considered in the light of executive instructions dated 29.12.2000, as the vacancies on promotional posts had occurred much before the issuance of said executive instructions. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 14.1.2003, by which the High Court directed the authorities to consider the promotion of the parties therein, ignoring the instructions dated 29.12.2000.D. The appellant retired on 31.12.2001 and filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15672 of 2003, seeking promotion and quashing of executive instructions issued on 29.12.2000 as well as on 6.9.2001. However, the High Court dismissed the said Civil Writ Petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 9.10.2003.Hence, this appeal.

Reasoning:
15. In view of the above, the law as regards this point can be summarised to the effect that, where a promotion is to be given on the principle ofsuch promotion will not automatically be granted on the basis of seniority alone. Efficiency of administration cannot be compromised with at any cost. Thus, in order to meet said requirements, all eligible candidates in the feeder cadre must be subject to a process of assessment to determine whether or not an individual in fact possesses the specified minimum necessary merit, and in the event that he does possess the same, his case must be considered giving due weightage to his seniority. Furthermore, the statutory authority must adopt a bonafide and reasonable method to determine the minimum necessary merit, as is required to be possessed by the eligible candidate. It must also take into account his period of service, educational qualifications, his performance during his past service for a particular period, his written test, interview, etc. The authority must further be competent to allocate separate maximum marks on each of the aforesaid counts. Fixing such criteria, or providing for minimum necessary merit, falls within the exclusive domain of policy making. Thus, it cannot be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their judicial powers, unless the same is found to be off the mark, unreasonable, or malafide.16. The relevant portions of the executive instructions dated 29.12.2000 read asIn the case of promotion to posts with pay scales less than Rs.12000-16350, the benchmark will beThis benchmark will determine the fitness of the officer and person graded ‘Verywill not supersede persons gradedHenceforth each Annual Confidential Report will be evaluated as under:-Outstanding : +A ……………..4 MarksVery Good : A ………………3 MarksGood : +B ……………….2 MarksAverage : B ……………….1 MarkACRsfor 5 years are taken into consideration for promotion. Out of a total of 20 marks, officers earning 0 to 14 marks will be graded overalland those earning 15 to 17 marks will be graded overall ‘VeryThose earning 18 to 20 marks will be graded asDepartmental which aremust have been out of the ordinary and reasons for giving grading must be cogent and well spelt out, to be accepted and outstanding. If the ACR does not fulfill the above criteria, the entry of theshould be read as ‘Veryonly. An officer will not be fit for promotion if he is rated ‘belowin any of the 5 years.Similarly, the executive instructions dated 6.9.2001 so far as applicable in the instant case, read asIn the case of promotion to posts falling in Groupthe minimum benchmark will beand there would be no supercession i.e. promotions would be made strictly on seniority- cum-merit.4. For making promotion in all the categories there should not be any adverse remarks in the ACRs under consideration.If, the instant case is examined in light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, it becomes evident that even in the absence of the executive instructions, the State/employer has the right to adopt any reasonable and bonafide criteria to assess the merit, for the purpose of promotion on the principle ofIt is evident from the material on record i.e. from the counter- affidavit filed by the State that appellant faced criminal prosecution as FIR No. 25 dated 12.4.1996 had been lodged against him under Sections 7 & 13(ii) of the PC Act, 1988 and Sections 467/468/471/120-B IPC, at Police Station: Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, wherein the appellant faced trial though, acquitted as is evident from the judgment and order dated 2.5.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 5 of 10.5.2001. His acquittal took place after five years to his retirement.Be that as it may, for the reason best known to the appellant, this fact was not disclosed by him either before the High Court or before this Court. It is another matter as what could have been the effect of pendency of the said criminal case so far as this case is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the appellant did not approach the court with clean hands, clean mind and clean objective.