GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 19 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 19:

1. Heard Mr. Debashish Roy, petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K Borah, learned Standing counsel, Punjab National Bank for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, a former officer of the United Bank of India (now amalgamated with Punjab National Bank), has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned Speaking Order dated 14.06.2024, whereby the petitioner's representation regarding alleged arbitrary marking in his APAR for the year 2010-2011 has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the said APAR as non-existent and to reconsider his eligibility for promotion on the basis of the residual APARs within the zone of consideration, i.e., APAR for 2011-2012, along with consequential service benefits, particularly because he has already superannuated on 31.01.2022.

3. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that 42 officers junior to him were included in the promotion lists dated 31.05.2012 and 08.06.2012, and many of those juniors were subsequently promoted, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner was disqualified from promotion during the year 2012 on account of an alleged below-benchmark APAR for the year 2010-2011. The APAR in question awarded the petitioner a total of 59 marks, one mark short of the minimum benchmark of 60 required for consideration for promotion.

5. In the 'Quality of Performance' parameter (maximum 20 marks), the Reporting Authority recorded that the petitioner's performance was "very good, capable of discharging duties independently, requiring minimal supervision, though needing deeper penetration in tackling defaulted borrowers" yet, he was awarded 13 marks out of 20 marks. The Reviewing Authority concurred and also awarded 13 marks out of 20 marks.

6. In self-appraisal, the petitioner had acknowledged certain constraints, such as the vulnerability of the area, poor asset-disposal scope in rural sectors, and some limited success in semi-urban pockets.

7. The Reporting Authority, while computing overall weightage, awarded 59 marks, which falls within the category of 'Good' i.e., falling in the weight range between 55 to below 70. The Reviewing Authority concurred with the overall weightage awarded by the Reporting Authority.

8. It appears that because of this single-mark shortfall, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion during 2012 despite being within the zone of consideration, leading to 42 officers who were junior to the petitioner being promoted to the next higher grade.

9. Since the marking for the year 2010-11 was not communicated to the petitioner at the relevant point of time, for which he did not get an opportunity to convince the respondent authorities as to why he should not have been given one more mark so as to make him eligible for promotion during 2012, he had approached this Court by way of a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3362/2012, wherein this Court, after hearing the parties by order judgment and order dated 11.08.2014 was pleased to direct that the entries in the APAR of the petitioner for both the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 be communicated to him and further was pleased to give an opportunity to the petitioner to submit representation against such entries and upon such representation being filed, the respondent authorities were directed to consider the same fairly and objectively with an open mind. Thereafter, the APAR for the years in question were communicated to the petitioner.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqBXJAZGhNyubuMGD7%2FTky2Q%2B1YXHzLAJejP5vj4VtVC0&caseno=WP(C)/4958/2024&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010180522024&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.