Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Avtar Singh Saini vs Punjab State And Others on 18 May, 2012
CWP No.20003 of 2003 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20003 of 2003 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.05.2012
Dr. Avtar Singh Saini
...... Petitioner
vs.
Punjab State and others
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate
for respondents No.4 and 5.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the official-respondents in promoting respondents No.4 and 5 to the post of Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology consequent to the meeting of DPC held on 20.05.2003.
As per the rules, the record for the past five years had to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and entitlement to promotion would require 12 marks. Thus the DPC in question was required to consider the record of the candidates from the year 1997-1998 onwards. It is not disputed from the year 1997-1998 to the year CWP No.20003 of 2003 (O&M) -2- 2001-2002 the petitioner was graded as above average but the marks allocated to him by the DPC for these 4 years was 1. As far as the year 2002-2003 is concerned, at that relevant time the ACR of the petitioner was not available. Subsequently, it transpired that the initiating officer had adjudged his performance as outstanding but the same was downgraded by the reviewing officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the grading of above average cannot be equated with the grading of average. He has further argued that as per the rules the reviewing authority was not competent to review the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2002-2003, firstly because he did not observe the work of the petitioner for a period of 3 months and secondly because his wife was also contestant for the same post. Therefore, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner for the year 2002- 2003 the ACR of the petitioner has to be considered as outstanding. He has further argued that respondents No.4 and 5 were also not eligible to be considered for the said post.
This argument has been countered by learned counsel for the respondents by stating that even the initiating authority was not competent to record the ACR of the petitioner.
The net result of the above discussion is that on 20.05.2003 the waters were extremely muddied. All kinds of disparities were being attributed to all kinds of authorities. However, with the passage of almost a decade there are good chances that the sediment would have settled.
The option before this Court is either to decide this case on merits or to direct the official-respondents to reconsider the entitlement of CWP No.20003 of 2003 (O&M) -3- the petitioner for promotion. The reason I am inclined towards the second option is that the first option would definitely involve substituting the Court's opinion for that of experts and secondly the possibility is that an order on merits may cause irreparable harm to highly qualified professionals (either the petitioner or the respondents No.4 and 5) in terms of their careers. On the other hand, the second option would enable the official- respondents to re-examine the case of the petitioner more objectively both on account of the passage of time and on account of the material which has come on the record of this case in this interregnum.
Resultantly, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 to convene a Review DPC to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion w.e.f. 20.05.2003. Let the necessary exercise be conducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and, in case the petitioner is found entitled to the relief claimed he would be given all consequential benefits except pay and allowances for the period he has not worked.
( AJAY TEWARI ) May 18, 2012 JUDGE ashish