AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is directed against order dated 21.9.2012 passed in W.P. No. 9787 of 2011 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed in part and it was finally disposed of with the following directions:-
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to make proper grading of the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2009-2010 keeping in view the ACR written by two officers by evolving some reasonable formula. If this is not permissible then the ACR of the year preceding the years under consideration, be taken into consideration and the case of the petitioner be reviewed for the purposes of grant of extension in service. If petitioner is found fit, appropriate orders be issued in this respect within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
This order is under challenge in this appeal. It is submitted by Shri Nagrath, learned counsel for the appellants that for the year 2009-10, ACR was written by an officer who was posted on 31.3.2010. He had seen the working of the respondent for a period of near about five months and written the ACR awarding grade ''C'' to the respondent. There is another ACR which was procured by the respondent from the officer who was also the superior officer to the respondent and had seen the respondent working for a period of earlier seven months of the year. In the said ACR, the respondent has been awarded grade ''A''. The question of extension of service was considered by the appellants and relying on the later ACR of the respondent, his case for extension of the service was turned down which order was under challenge before the writ Court.
Shri Nagrath, learned counsel submitted that the writ Court has wrongly remitted the matter for reconsideration with the directions as quoted hereinabove.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the writ Court.
On 25.9.2013, we directed the appellants to produce the original ACRs for the year 2009-10. Shri Nagrath has made available two ACRs for the aforesaid year in which for the earlier 7 months of the year, the respondent has been awarded grade ''A''. The aforesaid ACR was approved by the higher authority. Another ACR is for five months by the subsequent officer which has also been approved by the higher authority. In the subsequent ACR, the respondent has been awarded grade ''C''. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the writ Court has issued the aforesaid directions-which are under challenge. We have perused the aforesaid ACRs and found that the officer who had seen the officer working for a period of seven months of the year has awarded him grade ''A''. It is stated at the Bar by the respondent that the same officer was also the controlling officer of the respondent for the year 2008-09. Though there is another ACR for the same year 2009-10 but by an officer who had seen the working of the respondent for a period of five months and both the ACRs were approved by the higher authority. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, the writ Court has issued the aforesaid direction in which we do not find any error warranting our interference. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.