IN TH 236 Jagjit Singh State of Punja CORAM: HO Present : AMAN CHA 1. dated 03.10. P-3) to the e the post of D post of Deput 2. Assistant on CWP-9919- respondents Senior Assist whereof read IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGARH CWP Date o ingh Versus f Punjab and another M: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) Prayer made in the present petit 03.10.2016 issued vide endorsement o the extent of denying retrospective p st of District Treasury Officer and co Deputy Controller (F&A). The petitioner, who joined as nt on 21.11.1997 and Treasury Office -1992, quashing action of the re dents No.3 to 21 therein as senior to Assistants, which was disposed of o f read thus: “After hearing learned considering the submissi petitioners are claiming higher in the seniority lis respondents for the reaso Assistant Grade Exam promoted as Assistant wh were initially promoted UNJAB & HARYANA AT GARH CWP-26739-2018 (O & M) Date of decision: 15.01.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondents MAN CHAUDHARY h, AAG, Punjab. t petition is for quashing the order ement dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure ctive promotion to the petitioner to nd consequential promotion to the ed as a Clerk, was promoted as Officer on 05.01.2001.He preferred the respondents in placing private nior to him in the seniority list of d of on 13.03.2014, relevant paras arned counsel for the parties and bmissions made above, where the iming that they should be placed rity list as compared to the private e reason that they had passed the Examination before they were ant whereas the private respondents moted as Assistant provisionally PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.21 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3. placed at Sr.N to the said p account of he fact that vid relaxed the c officer who h December of completed on subject to their passin examination but when the granted exemption fro 03.05.1985. In terms of la Charan Singh's case (sup Rule 12 of 1984 Rules, i exemption from passi examination shall opera benefit shall accrue to su exemption is granted. Ke enunciation of law, the p make the case that they d the private respondents a they had passed the A whereas the private respo prior to the petitioners as at that stage, subject to p examination. They did n were granted exemption they shall be deemed to date. After correcting the sen given all consequential b promotion etc., if availab by the learned counsel shall not be claiming any notionally fixed and for fu be paid from April, 2013 clear that the benefits respondents, who have a will not be disturbed in an The present petition, i In compliance to the said dir at Sr.No.174 in the seniority list, how said post w.e.f. the date that of his t of he having not passed the departme at vide order dated 09.03.1983 (An the condition of passing the said ex who had attained or would attain the ber of the year in which he has to ted on 06.02.2007, the year in which h passing of the Assistant Grade hen they did not pass it, they were n from passing the test on s of law laid down by this Court in e (supra), where while interpreting ules, it has been held that such an passing the Assistant Grade operate prospectively and any to such persons from the date the ed. Keeping in view the aforesaid , the petitioners have been able to they deserve to be ranked senior to ents as they were promoted after the Assistant Grade examination respondents, who were promoted ers as Assistant but provisionally, ct to passing their Assistant Grade did not pass the examination but ption on 03.05.1985 and as such ed to have been promoted on that he seniority list, the petitioners be ntial benefits including any further vailable. However, as fairly stated nsel for the petitioners that they g any arrears. Their pay/pension be for future whatever is due to them , 2013 onwards. It is further made enefits already granted to the have already retired from service d in any manner. ition, is accordingly, disposed of.” aid directions, the petitioner was t, however, his claim for promotion f his juniors, has been denied on partmental examination, despite the 3 (Annexure P-4), the Govt. had aid examination with regard to the ain the age of 52 years on the 31st as to be promoted, which he had hich he was entitled for promotion PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.21 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. having 6 yea the ACRs for same having re-determinat Bhardwaj v judgment of India2, agai 20.12.2012, r 2013(1) RSJ (2008) 8 SC 6 years of service as required by the Rs for the years 2002-2007, out of w aving not been conveyed, are liable to rmination, as has been held by this C waj vs. State of Punjab and othe nt of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in against which LPA has been d 012, relevant paras thereof read thus: “12. Following the dict Court, it is clear that the year 2005-06 which cle insofar as consideration o of promotion to the hig Officer, was required Accordingly, it is held tha 06 having not been com was liable to be ignored mark. 13. That apart, I find th have acted arbitrarily in the petitioner for the yea employee to be consid fundamental right under A of India. It is not just a r fact, an obligation cast up fair consideration to an principles of service j admitted that the petitio good' for the year 2007 duly received but was n preparation of agenda Departmental Promotion basis for denying to the p of assigning three number for the year 2007-08. 14. Learned counsel a would bring to my notice retired on 29.2.2012, h superannuation. 1) RSJ 474 ) 8 SCC 725 by the statutory rules. As regards, t of which two were ‘average’, the able to be disregarded at the time of this Court in Dr. Gurdev Singh others1, placing reliance on the ourt in Dev Dutt vs. Union of een dismissed vide order dated thus: e dictum laid down by the Apex at the average report relating to the ch clearly had an adverse effect ation of the petitioner for purposes e higher post of Senior Medical uired to be conveyed to him. eld that the ACR for the year 2005- n communicated to the petitioner nored while determining the bench find that the respondent-authorities ily in not considering the ACR of he year 2007-08. The right of an considered for promotion is a nder Article 16 of the Constitution ust a right of consideration but, in cast upon the employer to afford a to an employee in terms of the ice jurisprudence. It has been petitioner had been graded 'very 2007-08 and such report had been was not available at the time of agenda submitted before the otion Committee. This cannot be a the petitioner the grading in terms umbers for such 'very good' report nsel appearing for the petitioner notice that the petitioner has since 12, having attained the age of PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.21 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4. vs. Union of has held thus 15. Accordingly, I all terms of directing the r consider the claim of the the post of Senior Me determining the bench m ACR for the year 2005- account the five previous 09, 2007-08, 2006-07, 2 further directed that if in which shall be concluded three months from the d copy of this order, the p bench mark, then orders s petitioner to the post of notional basis. The pet would also be held entitle the post of Senior Medica superannuation and wou pensionary/retiral benefits Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ion of India and others 2019(1) Ape d thus: “1. The sole issue involv the uncommunicated A (ACRs), which are adve have been relied upon for of the appellant for promo 2. In view of the decis Singh Vs. Union of India SCC 566, there cannot b This Court has settled th and adverse ACRs can process. 3. This appeal is, the impugned Judgment following directions (a) The competent auth uncommunicated adverse decision in accordance wi (b) The appellant shall of hearing in the process. 4. It will be open to available submissions, in Judgment of this Court i Vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C & SCC146. 5. The above exercise s I allow the present petition in the respondent-authorities to re- of the petitioner for promotion to or Medical Officer in terms of nch mark afresh by ignoring the -06 and in terms of taking into vious ACRs i.e. for the years 2008- 07, 2004-05 and 2003-04. It is t if in pursuance to such exercise, luded positively within a period of the date of receipt of a certified the petitioner fulfils the requisite rders shall be issued promoting the st of Senior Medical Officer on a e petitioner in such eventuality entitled to notional pay fixation on edical Officer as on the date of his d would be released the revised enefits accordingly.” urt in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan ) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 231, involved in this appeal is whether ed Annual Confidential Reports adverse to the appellant, should on for the purpose of consideration promotion. e decision of this Court in Sukhdev f India & Ors. reported in (2013) 9 not be any dispute on this aspect. tled the law that uncommunicated s cannot be relied upon in the is, accordingly, allowed and gment is set aside with the s :- nt authority is directed to ignore the dverse ACRs and take a fresh nce with law. t shall be afforded an opportunity ocess. pen to the appellant to make all ns, including the reference to the ourt in Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal .S.C & Ors. reported in (2009) 16 cise shall be completed within a an PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.21 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5. direction be into account mentioned un 6. course of he states that th matter and d period of si petitioner. 7. petitioner is f the orders a granting opp whereupon th 15.01.2025 parveen kumar period of two No costs.” Learned counsel, at this stage, on be issued to the respondents to re ccount the aforementioned judgmen ned uncommunicated two ACRs in a t The aforesaid facts having be of hearing, learned State counsel s that the respondents would not be ave and decided taking into consideratio of six months, which satisfies th The matter stands disposed ner is found entitled, grant the benefit ders are adverse to his interest, the g opportunity of hearing to him pon the petitioner shall be free to seek Whether speaking/reasoned : Ye Whether reportable : Ye o months from today. stage, on instructions, prays that a s to re-examine the matter, taking dgments and ignoring the afore- s in a time bound manner. ing been brought out, during the nsel sought instructions and thus be averse to having a relook at the deration the same, afresh within a fies the learned counsel for the osed of accordingly and if the enefit forthwith. Needless to say, if t, the same may be passed after him and shall contain reason, to seek legal redress thereupon. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE Yes / No : Yes / No ay. Y) PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.01.21 13:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.