Augustine George Masih, J - (1.) . - Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) whereby the petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks and average grading entered in the Annual Confidential Report (for short ACR) for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 by the Accepting Authority by not agreeing with the remarks/report recorded by the Reporting Officer which has been made the basis for reverting the petitioner to the post of Assistant vide order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P-9). The said order is also under challenge.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the order of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Deputy Superintendent dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P-2), it has been mentioned that the promotion of the employees is subject to the condition that if their integrity is found doubtful in the pending ACRs, then they would be demoted with immediate effect. Along with the petitioner, four other Assistants were promoted. Petitioner was communicated the adverse entry rendered in the ACR for the years 2006-07 and 2007-08 vide letter dated 11.11.2010 (Annexure P-3) wherein next to the column dealing with the integrity of the petitioner would suggest that the integrity of the petitioner was not doubted. He contends that the reversion of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 27.7.2011 (Annexure P-9) is not sustainable as there is no adverse entry recorded in his ACR which would render the petitioner liable for reversion. He accordingly prays that the impugned order of reversion of the petitioner cannot sustain.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner has been conveyed the adverse ACRs which were average and since the petitioner did not fulfil the requirement for promotion to the post, he has rightly been demoted to the post of Assistant. Mr.Rathee further submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the adverse ACRs conveyed to him which reflected that he has the knowledge of treating his integrity to be doubtful. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner having accepted the same, cannot now be allowed to take a plea that the specific columns were not conveyed to him. He states that the writ petition is not maintainable. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.;