Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dara Srinivasa Rao vs Andhra Pradesh State Financial ... on 18 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATHI
WRIT PETITION No.171 OF 2022
Between:
1. Dara Srinivasa Rao, M.Tech, S/o.Narayya, aged 56 years, senior
manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Plot OS No.2,
2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007,
Krishna District.
2. Nakka Bala Maddilety, B.E., S/o.Pedda Pullaiah, aged 46 years,
senior manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Plot OS
No.2, 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-
520007, Krishna District.
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep. by its Managing
Director, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar,
Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
2. Board of Directors, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation,
rep. by its Managing Director, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road,
Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
3. Sri R.Prabhakar Goud, Formerly General Manager (HRD), Presently
working as Chief General Manager (HRD), Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park,
Auto Nagar, Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
.... Respondents
Date of Judgment Pronounced: 27.04.2020
Submitted for Approval:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No
may be allowed to see the judgments ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No
marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to Yes/No
see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
` 2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
+ WRIT PETITION No.171 OF 2022
% 26.04.2020
# 1. Dara Srinivasa Rao, M.Tech, S/o.Narayya, aged 56 years, senior
manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Plot OS No.2,
2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007,
Krishna District.
2. Nakka Bala Maddilety, B.E., S/o.Pedda Pullaiah, aged 46 years,
senior manager, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Plot OS
No.2, 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-
520007, Krishna District.
... Petitioners
Vs.
$ 1. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, rep. by its Managing
Director, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park, Auto Nagar,
Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
2. Board of Directors, Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation,
rep. by its Managing Director, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road,
Industrial Park, Auto Nagar, Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
3. Sri R.Prabhakar Goud, Formerly General Manager (HRD), Presently
working as Chief General Manager (HRD), Andhra Pradesh State
Financial Corporation, Plot OS No., 2nd cross, 3rd road, Industrial Park,
Auto Nagar, Vijaywada-520 007, Krishna District.
.... Respondents
! Counsel for the petitioners: SRI C.SRINIVASA BABA
Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.R.SUDHAKAR
STANDING COUSNEL FOR APSRTC
<Gist :
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 2019(4) SCC 276
2. (2008) 8 SCC 725
3. (2013) 9 SCC 566
4. (2009) 1 ALD 651
` 3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.171 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents
in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of
Assistant General Manager on the ground of self-appraisal reports
shown as poor for the preceding three years.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
initially worked as Assistant Managers in the respondent-Corporation
and got promotion as Deputy Managers and they were promoted
subsequently as Senior Managers. Through out their career their
performance was noted as good and got promotions from time to time
till the level of the post of Senior Manager. Thereafter for the reasons
best known with respect to the affairs of the Corporation, their ACRs
were shown as poor and consequently they are being denied further
promotion as Assistant General Managers from time to time whereas
their juniors were promoted to the said post.
4. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the tables under the heads
of consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Senior
Manager and consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri N.Bala
Maddilety, Senior Manager, which are as follows:
Consolidated Self-Appraisal reports pertaining to Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Senior
Manager:
Sl.No. Financial Assessment by Reporting Assessment by Reviewing Score considered for
year Officer Officer/Managing Promotion as per
Director Reviewing
Officer/Managing
Director
Rating Remarks Rating Remarks Rating Remarks
1. 2014-15 3.65 Very Good 3.60 Very Good 3.60 Very Good
(far above standard) (Far above standard) (Far above standard)
2. 2015-16 3.75 Very Good 4.75 Excellent 4.25 Very Good
(far above standard) (Far above standard)
3. 2016-17 3.00 Good 3.925 Very Good 3.925 Very Good
(Above standard( (Far above standard) (Far above standard)
4. 2017-18 4.12 Very Good 0.50 Unsatisfactory 0.50 Unsatisfactory
(far above standard) (Poor) (Poor)
5. 2018-19 4.12 Very Good 0.50 Unsatisfactory 0.50 Unsatisfactory
(far above standard) (Poor) (Poor)
6. 2019-20 4.12 Very Good 2.00 Barely satisfactory 2.00 Barely satisfactory
(far above standard) (Below standard) (Below standard)
Consolidated Self-Appraisal reports pertaining to Sri N.Bala Maddilety, Senior
Manager:
Sl.No. Financial Assessment by Reporting Assessment by Reviewing Score considered for
year Officer Officer/Managing Promotion as per
Director Reviewing
Officer/Managing
Director
Rating Remarks Rating Remarks Rating Remarks
1. 2014-15 4.25 Very Good 4.25 Very Good 4.25 Very Good
(far above standard) (Far above standard) (Far above standard)
2. 2015-16 4.25 Very Good 4.25 Very Good 4.25 Very Good
(far above standard) (Far above standard) (Far above standard)
3. 2016-17 3.90 Very Good 4.25 Very Good 4.25 Very Good
(Above standard) (Far above standard) (Far above standard)
4. 2017-18 3.60 Very Good 0.00 Unsatisfactory 0.00 Unsatisfactory
(far above standard) (Poor) (Poor)
5. 2018-19 3.66 Very Good 0.50 Unsatisfactory 0.50 Unsatisfactory
(far above standard) (Poor) (Poor)
6. 2019-20 3.66 Very Good 1.50 Barely satisfactory 1.50 Barely satisfactory
(far above standard) (Below standard) (Below standard)
5. The above said tables indicate that from 2014-15 to 2019-20 so far
as the Assessment of Reporting Officer is concerned, the remarks were
very good for both the petitioners. So far as the assessment of the
Reviewing Officer is concerned, for the first three years of financial
years 2014-15 to 2016-17 the remarks were very good, excellent, and
very good respectively. Thereafter from 2017-18 to 2019-2020 it is
shown as unsatisfactory in the case of both the petitioners. The said
remarks of the Reviewing Officer for those three financial years were on
the same day after he left the office on 19.03.2020 as Managing Director
of the respondent-Corporation. The counsel for the petitioners refers to
the Guidelines of the Revised Promotion Policy wherein the eligibility
and criteria for the post of Assistant General Manager is shown in para
5(e) which is as follows:
e) To the cadre of Assistant General Manager:
Eligibility Service in SM Cadre
Min.Period of service 3 years
Qualification ACA/AICWA/MB/M.Com./LL.B./Graduate
Engineer from a recognized
University/AMIE/CAIIB/CFA
Criteria for Performance - 65 marks
evaluation Length of service - 15 marks
Interview - 20 marks
Total - 100 marks
6. Though the petitioners satisfy the said criteria for promotion, they
have been deprived of the same. After filing the writ petition the
petitioners secured these "Self-Appraisal Reports" and as such they are
filed as additional material papers. But there was no opportunity given
to the petitioners while reviewing officer taking a decision in conflict
with the decision of the reporting officer.
7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that no opportunity was
given for the petitioners when there is a conflict of opinion of the
reviewing officer with that of the reporting officer and as such the
petitioners do not accept the poor appraisal recorded by the Reviewing
Officer in the said ACRs as they are not tenable.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Anil Kumar vs. Union of India
and others1 wherein it was held that the opportunity should be given to
the employees to make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs
and consideration of promotion and it is binding on all the Corporations
and the Government employees. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India interfered with the decision of the CAT and the High Court in the
said case and directed the authorities therein to grant an opportunity to
submit a representation of the appellant therein in respect of ACRs for
their financial upgradation and consideration of promotions
subsequently. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows:
"10. In DEV DUTT V. UNION OF INDIA2 a two Judge Bench of this
court held that fairness in public administration and transparency require
that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must
be communicated within a reasonable period in order to enable the
employee to make a representation for upgradation. The view of the Court
2019(4) SCC 276
(2008) 8 SCC 725
was that non-communication of entries in the ACRs has civil consequences
since it may affect the chances of the employee for promotion and other
benefits. A failure to communicate would be arbitrary. This court held that
these directions would apply to employees of statutory authorities, Public
Sector Corporation and other instrumentalities of the State, in addition to
government servants.
...
12. The three-Judge Bench in SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF
INDIA3, held thus:
"8. In our opinion, the view taken in Dev Dutt that every
entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to
him/her within a reasonable period is legally sound and helps in
achieving threefold objectives. First, the communication of every
entry in the ACR to a public servant helps him/her to make
representation for upgradation of the remarks entered in the ACR.
Third, communication relating to a public servant and the system
becomes more conforming to the principles of natural justice. We
accordingly, hold that every entry in ACR-Poor, fair, average,
good or very good - must be communicated to him/her within a
reasonable period."
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Corporation submits that the petitioners having aggrieved with the
remarks of the reviewing officer in the self appraisal reports, they should
have preferred an appeal before the Board and interviews were
conducted on 12.10.2021 for the post of Assistant General Managers
and promotions were given on 27.01.2022 in respect of five vacancies of
the said promotions. Those promotees are not made as parties in this
writ petition and as such it is liable to be dismissed for want of non-
joinder of necessary parties. The counsel for the respondents also refers
to the proceedings of the Corporation dated 29.09.2021 wherein the
(2013) 9 SCC 566
objections were called for from the Senior Managers with regard to the
performances of officers for the financial years 2017-18, 2018-19 and
2019-20 on or before 05.10.2021. But the petitioners have not applied
for the same. However, he admits that recently the said self appraisal
reports were furnished to the petitioners during the pendency of this writ
petition.
10. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners clarifies that the
petitioners are not aggrieved with the promotees though they are juniors
to them and as such they are not made as parties in this writ petition.
However, they are only concerned with the existing vacancies and
future vacancies for their cases to be considered for promotions
notwithstanding the earlier ACRs which were remarked as
unsatisfactory without any basis.
11. Having regard to the above said facts and circumstances and in
view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
still the petitioners can avail the opportunity of making a representation
to the respondent-Corporation seeking for promotion as Assistant
General Managers. In view of the settled legal position, this court feels
that it is just and necessary to give an opportunity for the petitioners to
approach the respondent-Corporation by making such a representation
specifically within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of
this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent-Corporation is
directed to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion as
` 9
Assistant General Managers in the light of the aforesaid decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as expeditiously as possible preferably
within eight weeks thereafter.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel,
the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
_______________________________
JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
April 26, 2022
LMV
` 10
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN
WRIT PETITION No.171 of 2022
April 26, 2022
LMV
