Harshu S/O Jagannath Lade vs High Court Of Bombay, Bench At ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9073 Bom

Judgment                          1                     23-W.P.No.45.2022.odt




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 45 OF 2022


      Harshu S/o Jagannath Lade,
      Aged about 61 years, Occ. - Retired,
      R/o. Khalasi Line, Mohan Nagar,
      Near St. John School, Nagpur.
                                                     .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    High Court of Bombay
      Bench at Nagpur, through its
      Registrar (Administration),
      Civil Lines, Nagpur.

2)    Principal District Judge, Nagpur,
      District & Sessions Courts,
      Nagpur.
                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Mr. S. S. Shirsat, Advocate for petitioner.
     Mr. F.T. Mirza, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
______________________________________________________________


                  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                          G.A. SANAP, JJ.

DATED : 12.09.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 23-W.P.No.45.2022.odt

2. It is seen from the reply and also the documents filed on

record that in the case of the petitioner for grant of benefit of Assured

Career Progression (ACR) Scheme was not considered for the period of

2004-2005. For his such consideration, as per the guidelines issued in

the case of Shrirang Atamaram Nikam Vs. District and Session Judge

Thane & Others, 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 245, the eligibility of a Government

servant must be found in terms of all the parameters prescribed in

those guidelines. These parameters are such as a candidate being

eligible for promotion, and from out of confidential reports of last five

years, three confidential reports of the candidate being of such

categories as good and satisfactory. In addition, some other

requirements in accordance with the relevant Government Resolution

issued by the Government must also be fulfilled by the Government

servant. But, in the present case, from out of the confidential reports

of last five years prior to the year 2004-2005, at least three confidential

reports for the years 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 show that

the petitioner was an average Government servant and had also

arrogant and mischievous tendencies. So, it is clear that the petitioner

did not fulfill the criteria so laid down by the High Court and therefore,

findings recorded by the Advisory Committee that the petitioner was

not eligible to receive the benefit of ACP Scheme cannot be faulted

with in any manner. Unless and until, the annual confidential reports Judgment 3 23-W.P.No.45.2022.odt

are sought to be revised, in accordance with law, by the petitioner,

nothing can be done in the matter. There is no merit in the petition.

3. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No

costs.

                                    (G.A. SANAP, J.)               (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)




                         Kirtak




Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK
BHIMRAO JANARDHAN
Signing Date:13.09.2022
17:23