1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008 and further direct the respondent to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy. S.P.
2. The facts in brief are that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Police Sub Inspector and thereafter was promoted to the post of Police Inspector vide order dated 09.11.1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent vide communication dated 18.07.2008 informed about the adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 05.08.2008 to the respondent authorities. In pursuance of the said representation, the respondent authorities vide communication dated 07.11.2008 informed the petitioner that the adverse entry made in the Annual Confidential Report is maintained by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, again on 04.03.2009, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent authorities. Since the said representation was not decided by the respondent authorities, the petitioner on 12.01.2010 made a representation to the Government, which came to be rejected vide letter dated 06.03.2012 on the ground that there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, the petitioner may be deprived of the promotion to the post of Dy. S.P.
3. Mr.
Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is going to retire in the year 2013 and that in view of the adverse entry recorded in the Annual Confidential Report for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, the petitioner will be deprived of his promotion to the post of Dy. S.P.
4. Mr.
Soni, learned AGP for the respondent State submitted that as per the provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 07.02.1995, for the preparation of the select list for the promotion to the higher post, the DPC has to consider the assessment of the Annual Confidential Reports for the last five years as on the date of the meeting of DPC to ensure the eligibility of the employee for the inclusion in the select list. In the present case, the DPC has followed the guidelines prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 07.02.1995 and accordingly has given recommendation in the case of each employee, including the petitioner. Mr. Soni learned AGP has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of N.C. Das v. Gauhati High Court through Registrar & Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 321, wherein the Court has observed that promotion is denied on the basis of remarks in ACR's of three years immediately preceding date of consideration for promotion and such denial of promotion cannot be faulted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. From the record, it transpires that the reporting authority has assessed the overall performance of the petitioner for the year 2007-08 while recording adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential Report. Further, at the relevant time, the reporting authority had also recorded adverse remarks in the Ephemeral - rolls as per the provisions of Clause-4 contained in G.R. Dated 31.03.1989 for the period from 24.01.2008 and 20.04.2008 respectively. Thus, while recording the entry in the Annual Confidential Report, the reporting authority had taken into consideration the entries made in the Ephemeral - rolls for the period between 04.10.2007 to 31.12.2007 and 01.01.2008 to 31.03.20084.
6. It appears that the respondents have communicated the adverse remarks to the petitioner in the year 2008 and the same had achieved finality in the year 2011. Therefore, it is an after thought and having accepted the same, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition after a period of almost three years. Apart from that when the opinion of the Superior Officer is confirmed by the Reviewing authority, it will not be proper to substitute the said opinion. Thus, no illegality or impropriety is committed by the respondents in communicating the adverse remarks against the petitioner and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top