Punjab-Haryana High Court
Council Of Scientific And Industrial ... vs P.S.Chopra And Another on 14 March, 2013
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.5369 of 2013
Date of Decision : March 14, 2013
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & ors ...Petitioners
versus
P.S.Chopra and another .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.
Present : Mr.I.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh whereby the Original Application of respondent No.1 has been allowed with a direction to the petitioners to re-consider his claim for promotion after expunging the adverse remarks from his Annual Appraisal Assessment Reports (for short 'APARs'). The petitioners also challenge the order dated 14.2.2013 passed by the Tribunal whereby their review application seeking recall of the order dated 4.7.2012 has been dismissed.
2] The facts are broadly admitted. The first respondent (since retired) was a Technical Officer in the petitioner-Institute and was due for promotion to the post of Technical Officer Grade-C. He was considered and rejected for promotion on account of certain adverse remarks in his APARs CWP No.5369 of 2013 [2] for the period 1997-2001. The first respondent challenged those adverse remarks before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, vide Original Application No.578/CH/2003 which was allowed vide order dated 1.1.2008 and the adverse remarks were ordered to be expunged. The said order was slightly modified on the review application filed by the first respondent and has now attained finality.
3] The petitioners were thus required to reconsider the first respondent for promotion as Technical Officer Grade- C after ignoring the expunged adverse remarks. It appears that non-consideration of his claim again prompted the first respondent to approach the Tribunal in Original Application No.699-PB/2011 which has been allowed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 4.7.2012 with a direction that the APARs for the period 1997-2000 shall be required to be taken into consideration after ignoring/over-looking the expunged portion of those reports. The petitioners filed a Review Application against the order dated 4.7.2012 on the plea that the claim of respondent No.1 was re-considered after expunction of the adverse remarks also but he was unable to achieve the prescribed bench marks. The review application has also been turned down.
4] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and gone through the record.
5] Since the petitioners have a grievance against reproduction of only Para No.5.2.3 of their Instructions regarding writing of APAR and since one of their contention is that para Nos.5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 ought to have been read conjunctively, we reproduce all the three paragraphs of the CWP No.5369 of 2013 [3] Instructions as follows:-
"5.2.1. APAR proforma comprises two parts:-
Part-I: Self assessment report by the assessee and its appraisal by the Reporting/Reviewing Officer based on assigned tasks, accomplished work and outputs. This part of the appraisal will not be confidential and will carry 75% weightage and will be communicated to the employees.
Part-II : Assessment/Appraisal of behavioral aspects.
This part of the appraisal will be confidential and carry 25% weightage. However, only adverse remarks will be communicated to the assessee as per existing provisions. 5.2.2. The total APAR marks in a year will be 100. 5.2.3. APAR marks will be awarded according to rating of the assessee on a seven-point scale, as under:-
Outstanding - 100 marks
Excellent - 90 marks
Very Good - 75 marks
Good - 60 marks
Satisfactory - 50 marks
Fair - 35 marks
Poor - 20 marks....."
6] In our considered view, when total marks in a year
for the APAR are upto 100, an official cannot be awarded less than the corresponding grading earned by him as per para CWP No.5369 of 2013 [4] No.5.2.3 of the Instructions. In the instant case, the first respondent was admittedly graded 'very good' in the year 1996-97 but instead of awarding him minimum 75 marks, he was awarded 71.25 marks. Similarly, in the year 1995-96, first respondent has been graded 'good' for which he ought to have been awarded minimum 60 marks but the Tribunal found that the marks given to him are 58 only. This finding has been recorded by the Tribunal in para No.4 of its order which reads as follows:-
".... 4. It is common ground that an employee assessed as 'very good' can be awarded marks varying from 75 to 89; while a public servant assessed as 'good' can be awarded marks varying from 60 to 74. In the present case, the applicant was given 58 marks for the for the 'good' assessment for the period 1995-96 and was awarded 71.25 marks for 'very good' assessment for the period 1996-97, the grant of marks (58) below the minimum provided for a 'good' rating (60) was thoroughly inappropriate. That quantification of marks would appear to be in violation of the rating indicated in the course of the extraction in the preceding para........."
7] From the above noticed facts, we are satisfied that notwithstanding the expunction of adverse remarks, the authorities have not dealt with the first respondent in a fair and just manner while reconsidering his claim for promotion.
CWP No.5369 of 2013 [5]8] For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. 9] Suffice it to observe that the claim of first respondent for promotion shall be reconsidered in accordance with the uniform criteria applied in the case of similarly placed employees.
10] Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
$
March 14, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH)
Mohinder JUDGE