LPA-165-2024 (O&M) 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT INSPECTOR UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Ram Bhati for the appellant. Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, for respondents No.1 to 5. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1. Taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents which reflects that in the Review DPC, the get 118 marks by increasing not reach the aggregate of 122 marks. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the submissions. 4. The claim of the appell entered in his ACR for the year 2006 He submits that his ACR was therefore required to be instead of ‘Average’, but treating it as ‘Average’, he was depri promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 2010. In the subsequent (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH INSPECTOR DHARAMPAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA **** Mr. Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate with Mr. Ram Bhati, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Karan Kumar Jund, Sr. Panel for respondents No.1 to 5. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents which reflects that in the Review DPC, the appellant/writ petitioner get 118 marks by increasing his ACR from ‘Average’ to ‘Good’, he could not reach the aggregate of 122 marks. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. We have considered the submissions. The claim of the appellant/writ petitioner is that adverse remarks were entered in his ACR for the year 2006-07, which were later on expunged. He submits that his ACR was therefore required to be instead of ‘Average’, but treating it as ‘Average’, he was depri promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 2010. In the subsequent IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-165-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.05.2025 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Naresh Kumar Chhokar, Advocate with Sr. Panel Counsel, UOI SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents which appellant/writ petitioner could only his ACR from ‘Average’ to ‘Good’, he could Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in view of the appeal deserves to be dismissed. ant/writ petitioner is that adverse remarks were 07, which were later on expunged. He submits that his ACR was therefore required to be upgraded to ‘Good’ instead of ‘Average’, but treating it as ‘Average’, he was deprived of his promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 2010. In the subsequent (O&M) .2025 Appellant s Taking into consideration the reply filed by the respondents which could only his ACR from ‘Average’ to ‘Good’, he could in view of ant/writ petitioner is that adverse remarks were 07, which were later on expunged. ‘Good’ ved of his promotion to the post of Inspector in the year 2010. In the subsequent MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-165-2024 (O&M) year of 2011, his ACR was upgraded to ‘Good’ and he was promoted. He submitted a representation. The respondents conducted a Review DPC, but in the Review DPC 5. As we have noted the submissions of the respondents and find that even after adding marks for ACR, treating it to be ‘Good’, the appellant/petitioner was unable to reach up to the benchmark of 122 marks, we find that the any manner unjustified. 6. The appeal is therefore dismissed accordingly. 7. All pending applications also stand disposed of. 20.05.2025 Mohit goyal 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? (O&M) year of 2011, his ACR was upgraded to ‘Good’ and he was promoted. He submitted a representation. The respondents conducted a Review DPC, but in the Review DPC too, they had not promoted him for the year 2010. As we have noted the submissions of the respondents and find that even after adding marks for ACR, treating it to be ‘Good’, the appellant/petitioner was unable to reach up to the benchmark of 122 marks, we find that the action of the respondents cannot be said to be in any manner unjustified. The appeal is therefore dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No year of 2011, his ACR was upgraded to ‘Good’ and he was promoted. He submitted a representation. The respondents conducted a Review DPC, ot promoted him for the year 2010. As we have noted the submissions of the respondents and find that even after adding marks for ACR, treating it to be ‘Good’, the appellant/petitioner was unable to reach up to the benchmark of 122 action of the respondents cannot be said to be in The appeal is therefore dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No year of 2011, his ACR was upgraded to ‘Good’ and he was promoted. He submitted a representation. The respondents conducted a Review DPC, As we have noted the submissions of the respondents and find that even after adding marks for ACR, treating it to be ‘Good’, the appellant/petitioner was unable to reach up to the benchmark of 122 action of the respondents cannot be said to be in MOHIT GOYAL 2025.05.23 13:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document