This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a rejection of a representation against adverse ACR entries and seeking promotion. The court found no legal irregularity in rejecting the representation and held the promotion prayer infructuous as it was already granted.
The writ petition and interlocutory application were rejected with observations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10626 of 2006 With
Interlocutory Application No. 1920 of 2012
======================================================
Vinod Kumar son of Shri Lalpati Ram of village- Mitra Mandal Colony Anisabad Harnichak, P.S. Phulwarisharif, District-Patna
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naresh Dass For the Respondent/s : Mr. N.A.Shamsi, ASG Mr. S.N.Pathak, SCCG
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER
7 26-04-2013 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for twin reliefs; Firstly, he has assailed the validity and correctness of order dated 05.05.2005 (Annexure-4) passed by the Director General, CRPF, Bihar Sector, Patna whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for setting aside adverse remarks entered into his Annual Confidential Report for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 (Annexure-3), has been rejected, and secondly, he has prayed for direction to the respondents for granting him promotion on the post of Deputy Commandant from the post of Assistant Commandant of CRPF.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10626 of 2006 (8) dt.26-04-2013
2/5
3. It will be relevant to mention here that so far the second relief for promotion to the higher post is concerned, it is admitted case of the parties that during the pendency of the present writ petition, by order dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure-5) issued under the signature of the Commandant of CRPF, the petitioner has already been granted promotion as Deputy Commandant of CRPF w.e.f. 08.10.2007 in a prescribed pay scale. In view of the aforesaid order dated 09.10.2007(Annexure5) granting promotion to the petitioner on a higher post, the cause of action with respect to the second relief, does not survive.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner with respect to the impugned order dated 05.05.2005 (Annexure-4) has submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent Director General of CRPF rejecting the representation of the petitioner against entry of adverse remarks in the ACR of the petitioner is too vague and further it is not based on facts. Therefore, it should be set aside. In support of the above contentions he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Ramaswami v. State of T.N. [AIR 1982 SC 793] , M.A. Rajasekher v. State of Karnatka [(1996) 10 SCC 369] and State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra [AIR 1997 SC 3671] . However, despite repeated queries made by the Court, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not show the relevant rules, which can be said to have been violated by the respondent Director General, while passing the impugned order dated 05.05.2005 (Annexure-4).
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that the order dated 05.05.2005
Patna High Court CWJC No.10626 of 2006 (8) dt.26-04-2013
3/5
(Annexure-4) cannot be legally faulted and there has been no violation of any rule by the authorities concerned. He further submits that since promotion has already been granted to the petitioner on higher post, therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
6. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court finds that respondent Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) CRPF, Patna (Respondent No.3), being the reporting authority for the year 2003-04 had recorded the adverse entry in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner by letter dated 26th October 2004 (Annexure-3). From perusal of the aforesaid order dated 26th October 2004 issued by the respondent no.3, being the reporting authority of the petitioner, it appears that on an assessment of the functioning and working of the petitioner, he issued certain advices to the petitioner for improvement of his functioning and working on the post of Assistant Commandant.
7. It is true that entry in the Annual Confidential Report has to be made by the reporting authority on the basis of his subjective satisfaction with respect to the functioning and working of a particular employee/ personnel. Admittedly, the petitioner is an officer of a disciplined force of CRPF and if certain weaknesses/ lapses have been pointed out to him by his reporting authority with an advice to improve his functioning and working, then the same cannot be permitted to be assailed on bald allegation that it was the malafide action on the part of the reporting authority. Apparently, the petitioner was given liberty to file representation against the adverse entry made in his ACR by the reporting authority. The petitioner filed his representation,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10626 of 2006 (8) dt.26-04-2013
4/5
which was considered and rejected by the Director General of CRPF by the impugned order/ communication dated 5th May 2005. The petitioner has failed to point out any error with respect to adverse entry made in his ACR. Therefore, respondent Director General of CRPF rejected his representation. As indicated above, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has not pointed out violation of any relevant provisions of any law by the respondent Director General, while passing the impugned order dated 5th May 2005.
8. To me it appears that while accepting the report of the reporting authority, the accepting authority is not required to record any reason or pass any speaking order for such acceptance, unless and until he is inclined to disagree with the entry made in the A.C.R. by the reporting authority. Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner will not salvage the case of the petitioner in the fact situation of the present case. This Court does not find any legal or procedural irregularity in the impugned order dated 5th May 2005 (Annexure-5). Therefore, the first prayer made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be allowed.
9. So far the second relief is concerned, as indicated above, the petitioner has already been granted promotion on a higher post of Deputy Commandant of CRPF, as prayed for in the present writ petition. Therefore, cause of action does not survive.
10. At this stage, it transpires that the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1920 of 2012 seeking amendment of the writ petition and seeking permission of this Court to challenge the validity and correctness of order dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure-5) granting him promotion on higher post from a particular date i.e. 08.10.2007.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10626 of 2006 (8) dt.26-04-2013
5/5
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner is at all aggrieved by order dated 09.10.2007 (Annexure-5) granting him promotion on a higher post from a particular date, then in that case there is a separate cause of action and for that he can file a separate writ petition bringing on record all the relevant facts and rules for assailing its validity.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the above writ petition as also the interlocutory application filed on behalf of the petitioner are rejected, but with the observations made above. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
BTiwary/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of a representation against adverse entries in an Annual Confidential Report by the Director General violated any rule.
Whether the petitioner's cause of action survives for seeking promotion given that he was already granted promotion during the pendency of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
D. Ramaswami v. State of T.N.Referred¶19
D. Ramaswami v. State of T.N. [AIR 1982 SC 793] · Who else cites this
M.A. Rajasekher v. State of KarnatkaReferred¶19
M.A. Rajasekher v. State of Karnatka [(1996) 10 SCC 369] · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker MisraReferred¶19
State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra [AIR 1997 SC 3671] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinod Kumar
Union of India
Birendra Prasad Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
