- (1.) THE petitioner is a member of the armed forces. It is admitted case of the parties that he was enrolled in Ladakh Scout on 31.12.80. ¢He remained posted in 213, Transit Camp, Jammu from 20.10.91 until he was relieved on 3.9.94.
(2.) AS per promotion policy effective from 1.195, the petitioner required 5 regimental reports before he could be considered for further promotion. It appears the petitioner was having only 3 regimental reports. The petitioner was short of 2 regimental reports before he could be considered for promotion. He was accordingly transferred to Ladakh Scout in March, 1994.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that although he was transferred with the specific purposes of earning regimental reports yet he was not relieved till 3.9.94. Since Anual Confidential Reports (A*CRs. are initiated in the month of October every year under the existing rules, a person must have served under the Initiating Officer for minimum 90 days before he could earn his ACRs. Since the petitioner was relieved in September, therefore, he could not earn regimental reports. However, since he had served in the Transit Camp, therefore, his ACRs were written by the concerned officer under whom he has served, he came to know about the adverse entries in the ACR for the year 1994. While he was posted in the Transit Camp, when the remarks of the Initiating Officer" he knows the rules and regulations but uses them for personal manipulation" were conveyed to him. This pen picture being against the norms, was challenged by him before the competent authority and were expunged by the General Officer Commanding. However, the grading awarded to the petitioner was not conveyed to him. He seeks quashing of the ACRs for the year 94, because these were not conveyed to him and since average grading is adverse, therefore, it could not be acted upon. His further grievance is that he has been ignored for promotion only because of this adverse entry. The relief claimed by him is that he should be promoted, ignoring the ACRs for the year 1994 and on the basis of ACRs earned by him since 1992 to 1993 and 1995 The stand of the respondents is that the ACRs of the petitioner were written as per assessment made by the Officer, who had an opportunity to assess his performance. Since, he found his performance lacking, therefore, he was awarded average grading. It is further submitted that although pen picture drawn by the Initiating Officer was expunged by the Brig. Jasbir Singh, he agreed with the box grading while accepting the statutory complaint. Further, the respondents have justified the grading of the petitioner on the basis of his performance.;