AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. Narayana Swamy , CJ
Adverse remarks entered in the Annual Confidential Report, which was subject matter before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, for short "the Tribunal", was communicated to the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) on 08.10.2009 which reads "(a) Puts in hard work and is keen to do his job thoroughly and (b) Is indifferent and requires promoting and constant supervision to ensure completion of his work". The Tribunal vide its order dated 8th August, 2017 expunged the adverse remarks with direction to the respondents to hold a review Departmental Promotion Committee for the purpose of promotion.
Aggrieved against the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner, who was respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, has filed the present writ petition. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that Kameleshwar Singh Kaundal (respondent No.1 herein) was not considered for promotion in view of adverse remarks entered in his ACR as per communication dated 08.10.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved only in respect of second observation made by the Tribunal whereby the petitioner was directed to hold a review DPC.
Per contra, the case of respondent No.1 is that in view of striking of the adverse remarks, the petitioner has to consider his case for promotion. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner draw our attention to office order dated 30.12.2006 in which there are two slots for promotion to the post of Marketing Assistant- (i) 30% out of Procurement Assistant/Salesman (General seniority) with at least 8 year service as such failing which by direct recruitment or on contract basis and (ii) 30% out of Procurement Assistants/Salesman possessing Bachelor Degree from a recognized University with at least 5 year service as such failing which out of non graduate PA/Salesman. Respondent No.2, namely, Thakur Sain falls in (i) slot, namely, 30% out of Procurement Assistant/Salesman (General seniority) with at least 8 year service, whereas respondent No.1, who was the petitioner before the Tribunal, falls in (ii) slot i.e. 30% out of Procurement Assistants/Salesman possessing Bachelor Degree from a recognized University with at least 5 year service. Thus, Kameleshwar Singh Kaundal (respondent No.1 herein ) and Thakur Sain (respondent No.2 herein) fall altogether under different slots. Under these circumstances, there is no clash of their interest. Thakur Sain is having 8 years service without Degree whereas respondent No.1 who was the petitioner before the Tribunal, is having Degree with 5 years service. Thus, respondent No.1 falls under (ii) slot for promotion from Procurement Assistant which is altogether a different slot. As such, there is no clash of interest between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2.
Under these circumstances, we dispose of the present petition with direction to the petitioner to consider Kameleshwar Singh Kaundal (respondent No.1) under (ii) slot i.e. 30% out of Procurement Assistants/Salesman possessing Bachelor Degree from a recognized University with at least 5 year service of office order No.hpmc:Per:28/80/3267-83 dated 30.12.2006. The aforesaid direction shall be complied with within a period of three months. However, it is clarified that Thakur Sen (respondent No.2) falls under (i) slot, his promotion has nothing to do with the promotion of Kameleshwar Singh Kaundal (respondent No.1). In case any juniors to Kameleshwar Singh Kaundal (respondent No.1) are promoted then they are required to be reverted back. Needless to say, before reverting the petitioner has to issue notice and afford an opportunity of hearing to them.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.