Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned downgrading of Annual Confidential Report (for short the 'ACR') for the year 2002 -03 from "very good" to "average" being illegal, without recording any reason/justification by the Reviewing Officer and also in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re -consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director/ General Manager (Group A) according to the Rules. Briefly stated, the facts as mentioned in the petition are that on 26.3.1975, the petitioner had joined Punjab Government Service in the office of Labour Commissioner, Punjab. On 17.1.1980, the petitioner joined the Industries Department, Punjab as Junior Industrial Promotion Officer through S.S.S. Board, Punjab. On 1.10.1987, he was promoted as Senior Promotion Officer and further in the year 1994 promoted as Functional Manager whereas the next promotion was due in Group A.
(2.) THE petitioner is working in the office of Industries and Commerce, Punjab and is governed by Punjab Industries Non -Technical (Group -A) Service Rules, 2005. On 6.9.2001, Department of Personnel, Government of Punjab, issued circular letter vide which it was provided that ACRs for the last 5 years were taken into consideration for promotion and criteria for promotion was laid down as under: The case pertaining to the promotions as Head of Departments would be decided strictly on the basis of merit -cum -seniority. The minimum bench mark for promotion for such posts would be 'Very Good'. The marking system adopted earlier in instructions dated the 29th December, 2000 would be followed and a minimum of 15 marks would be required to be considered as Very good. The officer who is graded as 'Outstanding' would supersede the officer graded as 'Very Good'. For promotion to posts falling in Group 'A'; other than Head of Departments, the minimum bench mark will be 'Very Good' with at least 12 marks. Amongst those meeting this criteria, there would be no supersession. According to the petitioner, his promotion was due in the year 2003 in Group 'A' post for which Departmental Promotion Committee (for short the 'DPC') was held on 13.10.2003 but his name was not considered despite being fully eligible. On 9.10.2004, DPC was again held for promotion to the posts of Group A and the name of the petitioner, being eligible Officer, was recommended to the DPC for promotion and his ACRs for the years 1999 -2000, 2000 -01, 2001 -02, 2002 -03 and 2003 -04 were considered. In that DPC, he was considered eligible candidate for promotion and for the eligibility, 12 marks for the last five ACRs were required. Although, the petitioner had obtained 12 marks to his credit but at that time, no candidate was promoted and the post remained vacant. The ACR for the year 2002 -03 was counted as 'good' and two marks were awarded to the petitioner for the said ACR in the DPC held on 7.10.2004.
(3.) ON 13.9.2006, the DPC was fixed for the third time for promotion to Group A posts and cases of eligible Functional Managers/Project Managers, including that of the petitioner, were recommended to the DPC. This time the ACRs for the years 2001 -02, 200203, 2003 -04, 2004 -05 and 2005 -06 were taken into account and the bench mark was 12 marks of the last five years' ACRs.;