MADHURESH PRASAD,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent State.
(2.) Petitioner's claim for 3rd ACP under MACP Scheme 2010 has been rejected during pendency of the writ petition by the Departmental Screening Committee in decision dated 02.12.2013. The recommendation of the Screening Committee is for the reasons that the confidential report of the petitioner as per the bench mark was not available. Petitioner by way of Annexure 9 series to the writ petition has annexed copy of the confidential reports issued by the Director Agriculture, Bihar, Patna in support of his claim. By referring to the ACRs for the last five years prior to the date on which his case was to be considered he has submitted that the entries were in accordance with the standards laid down under letter dated 30.03.2011 bearing no. 929 issued by the General Administration Department in as much as the entries are worthy of consideration for grant of ACP.
(3.) Since from perusal of the decision of the Departmental Screening Committee dated 02.12.2013 appears that his case has not been considered because the ACRs were not received/available before the Screening Committee, interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter for reconsideration on the basis of ACR for the last five years of the petitioner prior to superannuation in June, 2010.;