S.C. Das, J.@mdashHeard learned counsel P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. J. Majumder for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner had been working in the post of Sr. Inspector of Excise which is a feeder post for promotion to the post of TCS Grade-II. He was due to be promoted to the post of TCS Grade-II but his promotion was denied by the official respondents and his juniors i.e. respondent Nos. 7 to 19 were promoted to the post of TCS Grade-II by notification dated 12.09.2007 (Annexure-I to the writ petition). Since his promotion was denied, he approached this Court by filing this writ petition seeking direction against the respondents to cancel the promotion of respondent Nos. 7 to 19 and to give him promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.
3. Respondents by filing counter statement contended that the case of the petitioner was also placed before the DPC for consideration of his promotion but DPC did not consider the promotion of petitioner as the petitioner was not found fit.
4. The petitioner by filing rejoinder affidavit placed on record his relevant ACRs and has contended that the DPC did not properly consider his case and wrongly denied his promotion though there was nothing adverse in his ACRs rather all the ACRs of the relevant period shows that he was qualified for promotion.
5. The respondents in response filed an additional counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that there were some corrections made in some of the ACRs but those corrections were not made with the signature of the authorized officer and therefore, it may be seen that there was interpolation in the ACRs and so DPC correctly did not consider the case of the petitioner.
6. I have meticulously gone through the ACRs of the petitioner during the period from the year 1999-2000 to 2005-2006. In Section-I of the ACRs, performance of duties of the Officer concerned i.e. the petitioner has been recorded in 13 columns and thereafter in Note (i) of the ACRs, it has been mentioned that while filling up of remarks in Section-I the performance of the Officer concerned, should be written as A, B, C, D or E and A means for ''outstanding''; B means for ''very good''; C means for ''satisfactory''; D means for ''indifferent'' and E means for ''poor''. Based on the remarks in Section-I, the remarks in Section-II regarding fitness of promotion has to be recorded as ''exceptionally well qualified/highly qualified/qualified/not yet qualified. All the ACRs show that the performance of the petitioner was mostly recorded as ''A'' or ''B''. Only on a few items it is recorded as ''C''. Regarding his fitness for promotion it is mostly recorded ''qualified'' and in some ACRs it is recorded ''highly qualified''. In the ACR of 2003-2004 in Section-II regarding fitness of promotion, all the criterias ''exceptionally well qualified/highly qualified/qualified/not yet qualified'' were deleted with a straight line and thereafter a tick mark was given as against ''highly qualified''. There is no signature of the head of the department after deleting the same. But the signatures of the Certifying Officer as well as the head of the department are there at the bottom of the ACR. The ACRs were in the custody of the official respondents and so whatever is there it is to be presumed that the petitioner had no access to those ACRs in possession of official respondents. There is no allegation in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had any sorts of access to those ACRs for any interpolation for correction in the same. If the promotion of the petitioner was denied for any adverse remark in the ACR, according to rules he ought to have been informed of such adverse remark but nothing is produced before the Court to that effect. The DPC minute also has not been produced to show that DPC correctly considered the case of the petitioner and thereafter rejected his case for any cogent reason. It is apparent that the petitioner was due to be promoted at least in the year 2007 when respondent Nos. 7 to 19 were promoted. His promotion was denied and the record shows that there was no cogent reason for denial of the promotion to the petitioner.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner that the petitioner has been promoted in the meantime and the promotional benefit should be given to the petitioner from the date his juniors were promoted.
8. I find force in the submission made by learned counsel Mr. Roy Barman.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The official respondents are directed to give promotion to the petitioner notionally from 12.09.2007 with all his seniority position i.e. from the date his juniors were promoted. The exercise should be done within 60 days from today.
