Delhi High Court
Sita Ram Aggrawal vs Punjab National Bank on 3 April, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 541/1990
% 3rd April, 2013
SITA RAM AGGRAWAL ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Apurb lal and Mr. Daleep Singh,
Advocates.
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raaj Birbal, Senior Advocate and Ms.
Raavi Birbal, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed by one Sh. Sita Ram Aggrawal, an employee of the
respondent-bank. The petitioner, who was Civil Engineer, was appointed as a
Manager(Civil) by the respondent-bank. On 29.3.1988, interviews were to be held
for promotion to the post of Senior Manager (Civil) from the post of Manager in
which the petitioner was working. The petitioner claims that he was bound to be
promoted through the interview exercise which was conducted on 29.3.1988
inasmuch as the respondent-bank wrongly considered the unsatisfactory ACR for
the year 1987 because this ACR of the year 1987 was communicated to the
W.P.(C) 541/1990 Page 1 of 3
petitioner only much later on 25.10.1988. On behalf of the petitioner, it is argued
before me unless and until adverse entries in the ACRs are communicated to an
employee, such ACRs cannot be the basis of taking action against the employee,
including refusing promotion to the employee.
2. Before proceeding ahead I must note that pursuant to departmental
proceedings the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of compulsory
retirement, and which has become final as challenge to the same by the petitioner
stands dismissed. Thus the limited issue is qua the promotion claim from March,
1988 till compulsory retirement in 1993.
3. There is no dispute to the proposition that an adverse entry has to be
communicated to an employee and communication of adverse entry or down
grading of an employee in the ACR is to put the employee to notice for challenging
the same if he so wishes. However, it is not the case of the respondent that
respondent has relied upon the unsatisfactory ACR of the year 1987 to deny the
promotion to the petitioner. What is pleaded by the respondent in its counter-
affidavit is that in the interview to be held on 29.3.1988, the ACRs of the years
1984, 1985 and 1986 were only considered and the ACR of the year 1987 was not
considered and therefore in fact petitioner was called for the interview. It is
however stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not qualify the
interview because he failed to obtain the necessary marks.
W.P.(C) 541/1990 Page 2 of 3
4. The petitioner has failed to file any rejoinder to the counter-affidavit, and
therefore, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner did not get the qualifying marks
in the interview dated 29.3.1988 for being promoted to Senior Manager(Civil),
Middle Management Grade (III). Therefore, the issue is not with respect to ACR
of the year 1987 having not been communicated to the petitioner, but the issue was
of the petitioner failing to qualify in the interview which was held on 29.3.1988.
5. Once the petitioner is found not to have obtained the necessary qualifying
marks in the interview conducted on 29.3.1988, surely the petitioner cannot claim
and nor is entitled to the relief of promotion. The issue with respect to the
communication of the ACR of the year 1987 to the petitioner is irrelevant in the
facts of the present case because this ACR of the year 1987 was not considered by
the interview board and the only ACRs considered were of the years 1984 to 1986.
6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
APRIL 03, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
