Dr. S.P. Kapoor Etc vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Etc on 2 November, 1981
So also there are 8 other parameters in which the first Reviewing Officer has given him the same grading as the IO. In the case of 4 other parameters, the RO has given to the petitioner a grading lower than the IO for the year 2001. Suffice it to say that the evaluation of the first Reviewing Officer by reference to the relevant parameters depicts an independent assessment and evaluation of the merit of the petitioner by the first Reviewing Officer not necessarily matching the assessment and evaluation of the IO. It is therefore difficult to see how the exclusion or expunging of the evaluation of the IO must necessarily result in exclusion or expunging of the evaluation of the first or the Second Reviewing Officer also especially when the said evaluations are based on an independent assessment of the merit of the petitioner. Such being the position, we have no hesitation in rejecting the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the entire report for the year 2001 ought to be excluded from consideration. Reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 2181 is of no assistance to the petitioner. That was not a case where the Court was considering evaluation in the context of the method followed in the Armed Forces. The observation made by their lordships that the revision of a report by a higher authority would not save the report from the vice of illegality where the person who had made the report was not otherwise competent to do so may not apply to a situation where the evaluation is not a revision as was the position in the said case but an independent evaluation of the merit of the candidate as is the position in the instant case.