Allowed¶30

Hitesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2025CWP/5568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: ACR grading; ungraded/remark-less ACR cannot be presumed 'Average'; 70% good-ACR promotion benchmark; revision of date of promotion set aside; Head Constable promotion; Executive Clerical Cadre; show cause notice dated 16.09.2020; order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure P-15); writ jurisdiction Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; State of Haryana; CWP-5568-2021 (O&M); decided 10.09.2025; Justice Jagmohan Bansal. No precedent cited or relied upon in the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) set aside, restoring/protecting the petitioner's promotion as Head Constable w.e.f. 13.03.2018 without revision to 03.06.2020; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶30

Hitesh Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's ACR for the period 01.04.2017 to 02.08.2017 (graded 'Average') deserved upgradation (prayer subsequently not pressed at hearing). +2 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

In view of the remarks recorded in Columns 1 to 12 of the third ACR (Reporting Officer found the petitioner honest, laborious, punctual, efficient, wise, cooperative and fit for promotion), it cannot be concluded that the ACR for 18.08.2017 to 17.11.2017 was 'Average'; if it is not 'Very Good', it cannot at least be declared 'Average'.

¶29

Key takeaways

If the ungraded third ACR is considered as 'Good', the petitioner had three good ACRs out of four; he complied with instructions issued by the Chief Secretary and was eligible for promotion.ratio¶29
The petitioner was rightly promoted as Head Constable on 13.03.2018 and there was no requirement to modify his date of promotion.ratio¶29
The instant petition deserves to be and was allowed; the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) was set aside.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Jagmohan Bansal, J.), CWP-5568-2021 (O&M), decided 10.09.2025 — Allowed. An Executive Clerical Cadre employee promoted Head Constable w.e.f. 13.03.2018 was served a show cause notice dated 16.09.2020 on the premise that 70% or more of his ACRs were not good, and by order dated 07.10.2020 his promotion date was revised to 03.06.2020. Of his four ACRs (July 2016–March 2018), the first was 'Good', second 'Average', fourth 'Very Good', and the third (18.08.2017–17.11.2017) carried no concluding remark. The Court held that, the Reporting Officer having found the petitioner honest, laborious, punctual, efficient, cooperative and fit for promotion across Columns 1–12, the third ACR could not be branded 'Average'; if not 'Very Good', it could not at least be declared 'Average'. Read as 'Good', the petitioner had three good ACRs out of four, had complied with Chief Secretary instructions, was eligible, and was rightly promoted on 13.03.2018; there was no requirement to modify his promotion date. The impugned order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) was set aside. The prayer for upgradation of the ACR for 01.04.2017–02.08.2017 was not pressed.

¶1

233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP-5568-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2025

Hitesh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and Others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

¶10

Present:Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking upgradation of ACR for the period from 01.04.2017 to 02.08.2017 and setting aside of order dated 07.10.2020 whereby his date of promotion has been shifted from 13.08.2018 to 03.06.2020.

¶15

The petitioner joined Executive Clerical Cadre on 22.07.2016. During July’ 2016 to March’ 2018, the respondent recorded

¶16

four ACRs of the petitioner. The detail of ACRs is as below:

¶17

Sr. No.	Period	Remarks
1.	22.07.2016 to 31.03.2017	Good
2.	01.04.2017 to 02.08.2017	Average
3.	18.08.2017 to 17.11.2017	----
4.	29.11.2017 to 31.03.2018	Very Good

¶18

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.10 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CWP-5568-2021 (O&M)

¶20

-2-

¶21

The respondent promoted petitioner as Head Constable w.e.f. 13.03.2018. The respondent issued show cause notice dated 16.09.2020 calling upon him to show cause as to why his date of promotion should not be modified from 13.03.2018 to 03.06.2020. The show cause notice was issued on the ground that 70% or more ACRs of the petitioner are not good, thus, he was wrongly promoted as Head Constable on 13.03.2018. As per his ACRs, he should be promoted from 03.06.2020. The petitioner filed reply to said notice. The respondent turned down submissions of the petitioner and by impugned order dated 07.10.2020 modified his date of promotion from 13.03.2018 to 03.06.2020.

¶22

Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that, at this stage, he does not press his prayer qua upgradation of ACR, however, his promotion from 13.03.2018 may be protected.

¶23

On being confronted with four ACRs of the petitioner which were recorded during July’ 2016 to March’ 2018, learned State counsel expressed his inability to point out that more than 30% ACRs of the petitioner are average or below average. He submits that in the ACR of 18.07.2017 to 17.11.2017, no conclusion has been recorded, thus, it should be treated as average and if treated as average, less than 70% ACR(s) of the petitioner would be good.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

¶25

From the perusal of ACR of July’ 2016 to 31.03.2018, it is evident that 1^st ACR is ‘Good’, 4^th ACR is ‘Very Good’, 2^nd ACR is ‘Average’ and no conclusion has been recorded in the 3^rd ACR. There are 12 Columns in the ACR.

¶26

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.10 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP-5568-2021 (O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

The Reporting Officer in the 3^rd ACR has found petitioner honest, laborious, punctual, efficient, wise, cooperative with others and fit for promotion. In view of remarks recorded in Column No. 1 to 12, it cannot be concluded that ACR for the period from 18.08.2017 to 17.11.2017 was ‘Average’. If it is not ‘Very Good’, it cannot be at least declared ‘Average’. If the said ACR is considered as ‘Good’, the petitioner was having three good ACRs out of four. He complied with instructions issued by Chief Secretary. He was eligible for promotion. He was rightly promoted as Head Constable on 13.03.2018. There was no requirement to modify his date of promotion.

¶30

In view of the above discussion and findings, the instant petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly allowed . The impugned order dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure P-15) is hereby set aside.

¶31

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶32

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE

¶33

10.09.2025

¶34

Prince Chawla

¶35

Whether Speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶36

PRINCE CHAWLA 2025.09.10 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hitesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Contractor Vs Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited

M/S Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Contractor Vs Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited

M/S Brightway Contractors and Developers Vs Punjab Heritage and Tourism Promotion Board

Sharda Rani & Ors. Vs State of Punjab. etc.

Sat Paul Vs State of Pb. & Ors.