Balbir Singh Nasir vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh, J.—The appellant had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he was entitled to promotion from the post of Agriculture Development Officer (for short, "ADO") to the post of Circle Agriculture Officer w.e.f the date his juniors were so promoted alongwith consequential benefits. The suit was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed and the appellant has, therefore, filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

As per the averments in the plaint, the appellant was working as ADO with effect from 28.6.1976. His name stood at seniority No. 722. The appellants claims to be discharging his duties diligently and efficiently. On 25.2.2002, 20 ADOs having seniority from 691 to 759 were promoted. Six posts, however, were kept reserved due to non availability of record or pending departmental action. Nothing was pending against the appellant. Still he was ignored for promotion. He, however, concedes that on 24.12.2001, his two annual increments without cumulative effect were stopped. Three ADOs were again promoted on 17.4.2002 but the appellant was still ignored. Another two ADOs were promoted yet again on 19.7.2002 but the appellant was still ignored. The appellant would also submit that he was having 80% A.C.Rs where there were no adverse remarks or doubtful integrity, which were relevant for consideration. The appellant would point out that he had already represented against the adverse remarks recorded in the ACRs for the period 1996-97 and 1999-2000 but no decision had been taken. On account of all this, the appellant has suffered and had, thus, filed the suit.

Respondent filed a written statement disclosing that the appellant was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on 9.2.1999 for which he was punished with stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The averment that the appellant is having a good record was denied. It is stated that adverse remarks regarding doubtful integrity were recorded in the annual confidential report for the year 1999-2000, where overall assessment of the appellant was below average. Accordingly, the appellant could not be promoted in view of the instructions issued by the Government in this regard. The representation filed by the appellant against the A.C.R for the year 1999-2000 was rejected by the Director on 16.12.2002 after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. The Trial Court framed the following issues:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be promoted from the date when any of his juniors was promoted from the post of ADO to the post of Circle Agriculture Technical Asstts. in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-9900? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment of difference of his salary along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, as alleged? OPP

Whether the civil suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Relief.

The suit filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Trial Court against which he filed an appeal, which has also been dismissed. He has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that no remarks regarding his integrity being doubtful were recorded in the ACR for the year 1999-2000 and it is being wrongly construed as such to deny promotion to the appellant. Otherwise, the counsel did not dispute the proposition of law that if his report contained a remark about integrity being doubtful, the appellant may not be entitled to the promotion. Accordingly, this Court directed the counsel to place on record the concerned Annual Confidential Report to see if this has been misread in any manner. The appellant had placed on record the said Annual Confidential Report where the remarks endorsed in the relevant column of `honesty'' have been translated to read "general reputation is under watch". The said report has also been placed before me. It appears that the remarks endorsed in column of `honesty'' have not been correctly translated in the copy of the report placed on record. In the relevant column remarks endorsed are "average" besides mentioning that "there is a need to keep close watch". Overall assessment in this confidential report is "below average". The submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant that this report can not be read to mean that his integrity was of doubtful nature, may not be entirely correct. The integrity has been found to be of average nature and it is recorded that his integrity need to be closely watched. Obviously, the appellant can not claim to be having integrity which is beyond reproach. Then overall assessment in the annual confidential report is `below average''. A person who is assessed as "below average" certainly can not claim promotion as a matter of right.

Somewhat, similar is the assessment in the report from 1.4.1999 to 31.12.1999. Overall assessment in this ACR was "below average". Commenting on integrity, it is recorded in the report that "THIK NAHI HAI" (not correct). Obviously, this would mean that the integrity was doubtful. The instruction No. 2579-4GSI-73/12854, dated 21.5.1973 placed on record as Exhibit P-12 clearly provide that there should not be any doubt about honesty in the reports for the preceding 10 years for becoming eligible for promotion and where it is so, a person should not be promoted. The view taken by the Courts, thus, can not be faulted and is well merited. There is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal. In fact, no substantial question of law would arise in this case. Though, the counsel has made an attempt to challenge the Annual Confidential Reports but he can not be heard on this aspect as in the suit filed no such challenge was made to the Annual Confidential Reports. In the suit, the appellant had only prayed for direction for his promotion.

There is, thus, no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.