Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1160 (GUJ)

M. D. Parmar v. Director Employment & Training

2016-06-22

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised, in all the captioned writ applications, are interrelated, those were heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The writ applicant before me is a retired Principal, Class - I. He is dissatisfied with the manner in which the State Government dealt with him so far as his claim for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director (Training) is concerned. 3. Few facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of these three matters may be summarized as under: 3.1. The petitioner was initially working as a Teacher. He applied for the post of the Principal (Class - I) pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. He was selected by the Commission and was appointed as the Principal (Class - I) of the Industrial Training Institute. He was posted at the I.T.I., Visnagar. He was served with a communication dated 20th June 1990 informing him of some adverse remarks made in his Confidential Report for the financial year 1989-1990. The adverse remark was as under: 1. Do you accept the assessment by the Reporting Officer in all respect ? If not, indicate the item on which you disagree and give your assessment on those items Yes partly, he was warned for proper handling of examination work. 4. The petitioner preferred a detailed representation in that regard on 30th July 1990, and by communication dated 19th August 1992, the words "Yes, partly" were retained, whereas, the words "he was warned for proper handling of the examination work" were deleted. 5. The petitioner, by communication dated 24th September 1992, expressed his inability to understand the meaning of the words "Yes, partly", and contended that the remarks were vague and would mar his chances for promotion. 6. On 17th October 1992, he was informed that the decision was taken by the State Government, and there was no scope of any review. On 29th June 1992, he was conveyed the adverse remarks as under: 1. Whether you are agreeable to the self-assessment made by the officer in Part-2 in respect to his performance ? If no, give reasons for the same His contribution is not observed in establishing the institute at Sami. No any action appears to have been taken for the Institute of Pilvai. 2. Whether you are agreeable to the self-assessment made by the officer in Part-2 in respect to his performance ? If no, give reasons for the same His contribution is not observed in establishing the institute at Sami. No any action appears to have been taken for the Institute of Pilvai. 2. Whether the authority given to him has properly exercised or he has attitude of returning the cases for guidance ? Delaying in implementation of the duties assigned by the head office. Lacks in accuracy in the disposal 7. The petitioner preferred a representation dated 1st August 1992 and offered his explanation in that regard. 8. The above led to filing of the Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994. The following order was passed on 17th December 1994: "If the petitioner's turn for promotion is repined and if his case is not considered for promotion only on account of adverse remarks in his Confidential Report which are challenged in this petition, the petitioner's case may be considered for promotion ignoring such adverse remarks for the time being, but he may not be given actual promotion till this petition is head and finally disposed of" 9. The Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995 relates to the Confidential Report for the period between 1st April 1992 and 28th February 1993 communicated on 31st July 1993. The adverse remarks are as under: 1 Initiative, understanding & readiness to shoulder the responsibility Attitude to put off the responsibility on others 2. Whether the authority assigned has been properly used or otherwise or he has attitude of returning the cases for guidance ? Does not utilise the authority properly 3. Whether there is qualitative reporting and assessment of the work of persons working under him has been made correctly and in a just manner? Something, the reporting is not trustworthy 4. Overall Assessment Self-centred officer required to be perform the duties as a Head of Institute without committing breach but to fulfill the trust put by the Department in him. 5. Overall assessment if any special work is done, together with its discretion “During the year, below average officer”. 10. A detailed representation was preferred in that regard, but the same was rejected. 11. 5. Overall assessment if any special work is done, together with its discretion “During the year, below average officer”. 10. A detailed representation was preferred in that regard, but the same was rejected. 11. The Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994 and Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995 were taken up for hearing, and by order dated 30th January 2003, both were disposed of in the following terms: "1. When the matters are taken up for final hearing, learned AGP, Ms. Manisha Shah, under the instructions of Mr. A.M. Kadri, Dy. Secretary (Labour and Employment), states that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in both the SCAs, sealed cover procedure was applied for considering the case of promotion to the higher post. Thereafter, under the oral direction given by this Court yesterday i.e. 29-1-2003, the sealed covers have been opened and it is found that the petitioner is not found suitable for promotion, even if the adverse remarks are ignored, on the ground that somebody senior and meritorious person is selected for the higher post. It has been further stated on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Joshi that the petitioner is to retire on 31-1-2003 on reaching the age of superannuation. Therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in examining the legality and validity of the adverse remarks, because even if the adverse remarks are excluded in the service record, the petitioner is not found suitable for higher promotion on the basis of inter se merit. 2. Hence these petitions, which are filed to challenge the legality and validity of the adverse remarks, are disposed of as infructuous. However, if it is legally permissible, this disposal of all these petitions will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the action of the authority for selection to the higher cadre. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated." 12. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 825 of 2005 and 826 of 2005 respectively were filed by the petitioner. Both the appeals came to be allowed and the matters were remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. Rule discharged. Interim relief vacated." 12. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 825 of 2005 and 826 of 2005 respectively were filed by the petitioner. Both the appeals came to be allowed and the matters were remitted to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration. The order dated 22nd July 2005 reads as under: "The importance of the confidential reports in the service career of an employee cannot be over-emphasized. These reports play important and sometime crucial role in the matter of confirmation, promotion, whether it be on seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority or merit alone, continuance in service beyond the particular age, grant of selection/super time scale, crossing of efficiency bar, etc. The remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports are taken into consideration at the time of promotion and an employee who earned adverse remarks is usually denied promotion even on seniority-cum-merit basis. The importance of recording of remarks, communication thereof and decision of the representation made by the concerned employee has been highlighted in the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. E.G. Nambudiri, (1991) 3 SCC 38 and U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, AIR 1996 SC 1661 . We have prefaced the disposal of the appeal with the above observations because we find that the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing adverse remarks recorded in his annual confidential reports for the years 1989-90 and 1991-92 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge without even going into the merits of the appellant's challenge and, this, in our opinion, has cause serious prejudice to him. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant, who was then holding the post of Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Mehsana had filed Special Civil Application to challenge the adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports for the year 1989-90 and 1991-92 rejection of his representation vide communication dated 17.10.1992 and 16.9.1993 on the ground of violation instructions issued by the State Government and arbitrary exercise of power by the reporting officer. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, learned Single Judge passed interim order for consideration of the appellant's candidature for promotion to the next higher post by adopting seal cover procedure. Accordingly, the concerned authority considered the appellant's candidature along with other eligible persons. During the pendency of the Special Civil Application, learned Single Judge passed interim order for consideration of the appellant's candidature for promotion to the next higher post by adopting seal cover procedure. Accordingly, the concerned authority considered the appellant's candidature along with other eligible persons. The recommendation in respect of the candidature of the appellant was placed in a sealed cover, which was opened before the Court on 30th January, 2003. After going through the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition as infructuous by observing that no useful purpose will be served by adjudicating the appellant's challenge because he found that the person senior to the appellant had been recommended for promotion. We have heard Shri G.M. Joshi for the appellant and Smt. Manisha L. Shah for the respondents. In our opinion, the issue raised by the appellant in the Special Civil Application, namely, that the reporting officer had not acted fairly in recording annual confidential reports for the years 1989-90 and 1991-92 ought to have been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge. It could not have been possible for the learned Single Judge to presume that even if adverse remarks were expunged, the Selection Committee would have made the same recommendations. It is quite possible that on the basis of a service record minus the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of the years 1989-90 and 1991-92, the appellant may have been adjudged more meritorious than the person whose name was recommended by the selection committee. This and other related matters clearly fell within the domain of the Departmental Selection Committee. Therefore, the learned Single Judge could not have brushed aside the appellant's challenge to the adverse remarks and rejection of his representations by assuming that his grievance has become infructuous. We would have ourselves examined on merits the appellant's challenge to the adverse remarks and decided whether the same should be quashed, but do not consider it proper to adopt that course because either of the parties will be deprived of the right to challenge the adjudication of the Special Civil Application, which is required to be made by the learned Single Judge. For the reasons above, the appeal is allowed. For the reasons above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside with a direction that Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994 be placed before the Single Judge for fresh adjudication on merits." 13. The Special Civil Application No. 11945 of 2003 had to be preferred as juniors to the petitioners were promoted and also contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the Civil Application No. 10257 of 1996 filed by the petitioner. In the said petition, it has been pointed out that on 5th August 2002, although one Shri S.R. Patel was subjected to a punishment of stoppage of increments for three years and in another inquiry, a penalty of stoppage of five increments with future effect was inflicted, yet he was promoted. On 31st January 2003, the petitioner retired from service. 14. I have heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State of Gujarat. 15. In the Special Civil Application No. 11945 of 2003, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed inter alia stating as under: "3. It is further submitted that on 08.03.1996 the meeting of Departmental Promotional Committee was held for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Training) Class-q, wherein the name of the petitioner was at sr. No. 28 in the list, but due to adverse entries in the Confidential Report of the petitioner for the year 91-92, 92-93 by scrutinizing last five years from 90-91 to 94-95, the name of the petitioner was not considered to be fit for the promotion and the decision was also approved by the Gujarat Public Service Commission on 01.10.1996. 4. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner had challenged the adverse remarks for the year 89-90 and 91-92 by preferring Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994 and further challenged adverse entries for the year 92-93 by preferring Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995, but at the best of the knowledge of the answering respondent, the adverse entries for the year 93-94 was not challenged by the petitioner though communicated the same on 16.12.1995. And therefore at the time of DPC on 08.03.1996 the said adverse entry was there against the petitioner. And therefore at the time of DPC on 08.03.1996 the said adverse entry was there against the petitioner. The copy of the communication dated 16.12.1995 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1 to this affidavit in reply. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent at this stage also would like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that the above stated adverse remarks were set aside on 21.06.1996 after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, but by considering the said facts it appears that on the date of the DPC 08.03.1996 the adverse entry was there in the confidential report of the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that 17.07.1997 the chargesheet was issued by considering adverse entries for the year 1989-90, wherein the petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 16.06.1999 passed by the State Government through Labour and Employment Department. 7. It is respectfully submitted that vide order dated 28.10.1999 passed in Civil Application No. 10529 of 1999 in Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995, the learned Single Judge of this Court had pleased to observe that "It is clarified that, on future consideration of promotional exercise by the DPC for which the adverse material subject matter of the present petition is not likely to be taken into consideration, there shall not be any impediment in giving effect to the recommendations made by the DPC in favour of the petitioner, if any, on account of the aforesaid interim order. However, if for any other reason, making of recommendation or giving effect to such recommendation is affected, that would be considered independently by the respondents." 8. It is respectfully submitted that in the above order the learned Single Judge had also observed that "the ACRs of 1992-93 and before are not liable to be considered by the DPC in the future. And therefore it appears that as the ACR of the year 1993-94 were there at the relevant point of time, the DPC held on 08.03.1996 in view of the same the name of the petitioner was not considered for the promotion. 9. And therefore it appears that as the ACR of the year 1993-94 were there at the relevant point of time, the DPC held on 08.03.1996 in view of the same the name of the petitioner was not considered for the promotion. 9. It is most respectfully submitted that on 20.06.2000 on more charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after considering the necessary evidence on record, on 04.02.2002, the order of punishment was passed by the State Government through Labour and Employment Department, whereby it was order to stop one increment w.e.f. 01.02.2002 for six months without future effect, that will continue upto 01.08.2002. The copy of the charge sheet dated 20.06.2000 with the order dated 04.02.2000 with the order dated 04.02.2002 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R2 collectively to this affidavit in reply. 10. It is further submitted that thereafter on 11.04.2002, the DPC meeting was held, wherein the petitioner was at sr. No. 28 and one Shri S.R. Patel was at sr. No. 18, but it appears that as the effect of the punishment was continue against the petitioner and at this stage the answering respondent would also like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that one adverse entry was made for the year 2001-02 about his Honesty and therefore on 05.08.2002 the promotion was given to one Shri S.R. Patel. 11. It is respectfully submitted that even vide judgment dated 30.01.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 5190 of 1994 with Special Civil Application No. 2938 of 1995 the learned Single Judge of this Court had pleased to observe that "therefore, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served in examining the legality and validity of the adverse remarks, because even if the adverse remarks are excluded in the service record, the petitioner is not found suitable for higher promotion on the basis of inter se merit." The Hon'ble Court further observed that "However, if it is legally permissible, this disposal of all these petitions will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the action of the authority for selection to the higher cadre. All contentions of the parties are kept open." The copy of the judgment dated 30.01.2003 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3 to this affidavit in reply. All contentions of the parties are kept open." The copy of the judgment dated 30.01.2003 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R3 to this affidavit in reply. It is further submitted that at the best of the knowledge of the answering respondent, the order dated 30.01.2003 was challenged by way of preferring Letters Patent Appeal No. 825 of 2005 and the same was disposed of on 22.07.2005. 12. It is most humbly and respectfully submitted that the answering respondent also would like to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that one more charge sheet was issued on 30.01.2003 to the petitioner, wherein vide order dated 07.11.2005, the punishment was imposed to deduct pension cut of Rs. 100/- for three years. The copy of the charge sheet dated 30.01.2003 with the order dated 07.11.2005 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R4 collectively to this affidavit." 16. I am of the opinion having regard to the materials on record that the petitioner has not been dealt with in accordance with law so far as his claim for promotion is concerned. The order passed by this Court dated 8th December 2015 speaks for itself: "When the petitions are taken up today, Ms. V.S. Pathak, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for time in order to file an affidavit-in-reply, in the petitions. She also submits that the papers of the petition have not been made available to her, today. The request for filing a reply is not only surprising, but also disappointing, considering the fact that one of the petitions was filed in the year 1995 and the connected petition in the year 2003. The petitioner is the same in both the petitions. It has taken the State Government two decades to wake up to the fact that an affidavit-in-reply is required to be filed in Special Civil Application No. 2938/1995. Thirteen years have elapsed since the filing of Special Civil Application No. 11945/2003, but no reply is forthcoming, till date. It is true that the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 01.05.2015, but they were restored by an order dated 10.09.2015, passed by this Court. Even discounting this period of four months and ten days, there is no excuse for not filing an affidavit-in-reply for so many years. It is true that the petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution by an order dated 01.05.2015, but they were restored by an order dated 10.09.2015, passed by this Court. Even discounting this period of four months and ten days, there is no excuse for not filing an affidavit-in-reply for so many years. The petitioner has long retired, on 31.01.2003, and is very much a Senior Citizen, waiting for his petitions to be decided. Learned advocate for the petitioner is ready and willing to conduct the matter, but the learned Assistant Government Pleader has prayed for time in order to take instructions and/or file the affidavits-in-reply. The Court is keen to take up the matter for hearing, but for the request made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, who requires not only instructions, but also the papers. Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that he has already supplied a full set of papers to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It appears that the Office of the Government Pleader has not supplied the papers to the learned Assistant Government Pleader today. Recently, the matters have been adjourned twice on 14.10.2015 and 03.11.2015, for this reason but the papers are still not supplied to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. How many adjournments can the Court grant on this count? Can the litigant be made to suffer indefinitely because the other side has no papers in spite of sufficient opportunity being granted to procure them ? This is not the first time such obstructions in the working of the Court have taken place due to lack of the brief on the part of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders are not supplied with papers in several matters, almost on a daily basis. The net result is that the hearing of the cases by the Court is hampered and impeded. Old matters, which ought to be decided expeditiously, cannot be opened as the learned Assistant Government Pleader assigned to the Court cannot proceed with the matter without papers. The problem is assuming chronic proportions, hence, this Court has no other option but to request the learned Government Pleader to look into the matter, so that the work of the Court is not interrupted. The problem is assuming chronic proportions, hence, this Court has no other option but to request the learned Government Pleader to look into the matter, so that the work of the Court is not interrupted. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it is made clear that if the affidavits-in-reply are to be filed, they may be filed on, or before, the next date of hearing, by paying costs of Rs. 10,000/- (both petitions inclusive) to the Secretary, Legal Services Authority, High Court of Gujarat, considering that the matters are old ones. In any case, whether the affidavits-in-reply in these matters are filed or not, the Court would expect the learned Assistant Government Pleader to be ready for final arguments on the next date of hearing. List on 15.12.2015. A copy of this order be made available to the learned Assistant Government Pleader in order to enable her to bring it to the notice of the learned Government Pleader." 17. There is no proper reply to the averments made in para 4(B) of the Special Civil Application No. 11945 of 2003, which reads as under: "4.[B] Petitioner states that when the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted on 08.03.1996, the following are the relevant factors to be taken into consideration. (a) The adverse remarks of 1989-90 could not have been considered as the same would be beyond the period of five years. (b) The Departmental Promotion Committee ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for promotion, but the same has not been considered by the DPC, in spite of the clear cut order passed by this Hon'ble Court. The Departmental promotion committee was compelled to consider the case of the petitioner ignoring the adverse remarks pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Civil Application for contempt which was moved by the petitioner. Therefore, there was an institutional bias, as a result of which the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, but again, according to the information of the petitioner, k a note was put up stating that a Departmental inquiry was contemplated/pending against the petitioner. As a matter of fact no show cause notice or charge sheet was issued to the petitioner at the time when the Departmental Promotion committee was considering the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact no show cause notice or charge sheet was issued to the petitioner at the time when the Departmental Promotion committee was considering the case of the petitioner. The charge sheet was issued to the petitioner after a period of 15 months, after the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted for considering the case of the petitioner, pursuant to the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner's case was required to be considered together with the factor of contemplated/pending inquiry, the Departmental Promotion Committee ought to have placed the case of the petitioner in a sealed cover and ought to have opened the same after the result of the inquiry. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was completely exonerated of the charges leveled against him in the said inquiry. The net result of the consideration of the case of the petitioner was that though adverse remarks were to be ignored, his case was rejected on the ground of contemplated departmental inquiry and the juniors were promoted by-passing/superceding the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Petitioner states that it is a matter of record that two juniors were given a special treatment in spite of the fact that there was no positive merit found in him. Petitioner further submits that Mr. Pandav and Mr. Mokaria were lacking in experience by more than one year, the prescribed experience criteria were specifically waived inasmuch as though they were short of 15 months & 16 months respectively, their cases were not only considered but they were promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Trg). This shows that the petitioner's case was wrongly rejected for promotion and the petitioner was kept in complete dark about its extraneous considerations which have weighed with the authority. Petitioner came to know about his rejection of the case only when sealed cover was opened before this Hon'ble Court on 31.01.2003. Therefore petitioner has made some research work in the subject matter and therefore he came to know about the injustice caused to him at the time of consideration of promotion in the year 1996. In 1997 petitioner presumes that petitioner's case was considered for promotion but was again rejected because of the fact of inquiry. Therefore petitioner has made some research work in the subject matter and therefore he came to know about the injustice caused to him at the time of consideration of promotion in the year 1996. In 1997 petitioner presumes that petitioner's case was considered for promotion but was again rejected because of the fact of inquiry. Again in such an eventuality, as per the order passed by this Hon'ble Court and the Resolution passed by the Government of Gujarat, the result of the petitioner's case ought to have been kept in a sealed over, which speaks volumes about the unlawful and illegal procedure adopted by the Departmental Promotion Committee. (c) Two persons who were juniors to the petitioner were promoted by order dated 18.10.1996. (d) Out of two junior persons, one candidate namely Mr. S.J. Pandav was not fulfilling relevant experience criteria namely he was falling short of the experience criteria by 1 year and 4 months (approximately). [C] Again while promoting two persons to the post of Deputy Director by order dated 23.10.1997, petitioner's case was not considered. It is relevant to note that out of two candidates, one candidate Mr. L.G. Mokaria was junior to the petitioner but still petitioner's case was not considered and sidelined in spite of the clear cut directions of this Hon'ble Court. As stated hereinabove said Mr. L.G. Mokaria was lacking in experience criteria by about 16 months and he was given the deemed date also. [D] Again while passing the order dated 05.01.2002 whereby Shri S.R. Patel was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Training), the respondent authorities has committed the following grave irregularities. (i) that Shri S.R. Patel was issued with the charge sheet to the effect that: [a] discarding the Government instructions and purchasing without inviting public tender. [D] Again while passing the order dated 05.01.2002 whereby Shri S.R. Patel was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Training), the respondent authorities has committed the following grave irregularities. (i) that Shri S.R. Patel was issued with the charge sheet to the effect that: [a] discarding the Government instructions and purchasing without inviting public tender. [b] though material as per order was not physically and actually received, entries were made to that effect by tampering with the records [c] accepting furniture not as per the specifications and paying the full payment for inferior quality goods thereby committed irregularities [d] constituting purchase committee of his own, by not following the Government guidelines/instructions and opening the tender in the absence of Stores-In-Charge [e] withdrawal of grant unnecessarily from the treasury without proper planning and perfect calculation [f] purchasing furniture exceeding the limits/jurisdiction [g] selection of Watchman/Peon without following the due procedure as per his own will and wish All the above charges are proved and the Government of Gujarat has imposed a punishment of withholding of three years increment with future effect, taking into consideration the gravity of the misconduct, whereby the Government has incurred financial loss. A copy of the order dated 11.06.1999 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure "F" to this petition. Apart from this, Shri S.R. Patel was subjected to another inquiry in respect of admission of trainees which was duly proved and by order dated 09.02.2000 he was imposed a punishment of stoppage of five months increments without future effect. A copy of the order dated 09.02.2000 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure "G" to this petition. In spite of these two successive punishments imposed on Mr. S.R. Patel, he was considered for promotion and by order dated 05.08.2002 he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Trg). If such persons can be considered for promotion, it is crystal clear that the petitioner's was wantonly omitted because of caste discrimination." 18. I am of the view that the entire matter should be reconsidered by the State Government in accordance with law and dealing with what has been averred in the writ application referred to above. The respondent - State Government is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director (Training) with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted i.e. 18th October 1996. The respondent - State Government is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of the Deputy Director (Training) with effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted i.e. 18th October 1996. I expect the State Government to undertake the necessary exercise at the earliest, and pass appropriate orders in this regard within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. I may only say so far as the adverse remark for the financial year 1989-1990 is concerned that the same is absolutely vague. So far as the remarks which were communicated for the period between 1st April 1991 and 31st March 1992 are concerned, the same should have been considered in view of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 1st August 1992. 19. All these three writ applications are disposed of in the above terms. It is made clear that if the petitioner is dissatisfied, in any manner, with the fresh decision of the State Government, then it shall be open for him to avail of an appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. Direct service is permitted.