Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Man Mohan Singh Malik v. State of Haryana & Anr - CWP-142-1987 [2006] RD-P&H 3883 (10 July 2006)

CWP No.142 of 1987 [1]


C.W.P.No.142 of 1987

Date of Decision: 21 - 4 - 2006

Man Mohan Singh Malik ........Petitioner v.

State of Haryana and another .........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.PATWALIA

Present: None for the petitioner.

Mr.Suresh Monga, Sr.DAG, Haryana

for the respondents.



In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.1985, Annexure P-1, whereby the case of the petitioner for the crossing of 1250/- was declined. The petitioner claims that his service record from 1976 onwards was either `Good' or `Satisfactory' and, therefore, there was no justification with the respondents to reject his claim for the crossing of efficiency bar. It is the further case of the petitioner that his claim has been denied on the basis of adverse remarks for the period 3.11.1981 to 2.2.1982 and 3.2.1982 to 2.8.1982. The petitioner asserts that these remarks could not have been taken into consideration as these were not conveyed to him upto the date when the order rejecting his claim was passed. Consequently, he contends that these un- communicated remarks against which he had been given no opportunity to make a CWP No.142 of 1987 [2]

representation, could not have been used to his prejudice.

The respondents have filed a written statement contesting the petition. In the written statement, reliance has been placed on instructions dated 29.1.1974 detailing the guidelines which have been issued by the State Government for considering the cases of employees for crossing of efficiency bar.

Clause 6 of the instructions which is relevant is as under:- "6. While Heads of Departments are required to exercise their judgment and discretion in such case, the following should be kept in view:-

(1) The efficiency bars must be real, and permission to cross them should not be given as a matter of course to Government servants who just manage to avoid getting into trouble.

(2) On the other hand stoppage at an efficiency bar should be for general back work and inefficiency and not for one or two lapses only.

(3) For the purpose of crossing the efficiency bars Govt. servants will broadly fall into three categories as below and their cases should be dealt with as explained against each:- (a) Good Are those who consistently earn good reports and who should in ordinary course be permitted by the competent authority to cross the efficiency bars.

(b) Fair Are those who secure at least 50% good reports.

They should not be permitted to cross the bar unless the head of the Department is satisfied on a careful study of the record, that they merit promotion and give promise of satisfactory filling the heavier charges in the grade.

(c) Poor Are the remainder, and they should not be CWP No.142 of 1987 [3]

permitted to cross the bar.

Heads of Departments while considering each case on the basis of the above classification may take into account the severity or leniency of the officer whose reports are under consideration and the nature of the work on which the Govt.

servant was employed.

(4) Efficiency and honesty taken together should be the guiding factor in dealing with the cases of efficiency bar.

(5) In the case of the first efficiency bar the whole record of the officer/official in the grade in which the bar is to be crossed should be taken into consideration. In the case of the second efficiency bar only that record should be taken into consideration which the officer/official has earned since he was allowed to cross the first efficiency bar.

(6) The record of the officer/official during the period of 5 years preceding the date on which crossing of the efficiency bar becomes due should be given special importance.

(7) An employee who has earned an adverse report against integrity during the period for which the work and conduct is taken into consideration; should not be allowed to cross efficiency bar provided that if any such report is older 10 years the competent authority may take a lenient view." A perusal of the instructions reproduced above would show that as per Clause (5) in the case of first efficiency bar, the whole record of the officials in the grade in which the bar is to be crossed is to be taken into consideration. Clause 6(3) envisages that all employees are to be categorised as Good, Fair or Poor. The employees who consistently earn good reports are to be categorised as Good, the employees who at least secure 50% good reports are to be treated as Fair and the CWP No.142 of 1987 [4]

remainder as Poor. While the first category is to be permitted to cross the efficiency bar in ordinary course, the third category is not to be permitted to cross the efficiency bar. In the second category, there is a discretion with the Head of the Department to further study the record and thereafter to decide whether or not the official is to be permitted to cross the efficiency bar.

It is the further stand of the respondent that the petitioner's case was examined in the light of this instructions. The petitioner was placed in the selection grade of Rs.700-30-850/900-40-1100-EB-50-1250 w.e.f. 31.12.1978.

Thus, his service record from 31.12.1978 upto 1.5.1983 was to be considered. It is the further assertion of the respondents that this was the first and the only efficiency bar in this grade. The petitioner's service record for this period as detailed in the written statement is as under:- Sr.No. Period of Report Assessment Nos. of Months

1. 31-12-78 to 3/79 Good 3 Months

2. Year ending 3/80 Average 12 Months

3. Year ending 2/81 Average 12 Months

4. (i) 4/81 to 10/81 Average 7 Months (ii)11/81 to 2/2/82 Poor 3 Months

5. (i)3/2/82 to 2/8/82 Average 6 Months (ii)11/8/82 to 3/83 Good 8 Months

Total 4 Years and

3 Months

A perusal of the service record would show that for this period, the petitioner's good reports are only for 11 months and all the remaining reports are either Average or Poor. Thus, the petitioner falls in the category of Poor having secured even less than 50 % Good reports in terms of the instructions dated 29.1.1974 and consequently could not have been permitted to cross the efficiency bar.

I have heard Mr.Suresh Monga, learned counsel appearing for the State. Having gone through the record and considered the controversy in the light CWP No.142 of 1987 [5]

of the facts as delineated above, I am of the opinion that petitioner's case for crossing of the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.5.1983 was rightly declined by the State Government in the light of instructions dated 29.1.1974. Having far less than 50% Good reports, the petitioner fell in the category or Poor and, therefore, he could not be permitted to cross the efficiency bar.

Before parting, it would be necessary to record that Mr.Monga pointed out that vide order dated 31.3.1987, the petitioner was permitted to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.5.1986 when he satisfied the conditions laid down in the instructions dated 29.1.1974..

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is consequently dismissed. In the circumstances of this case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.


April 21, 2006. JUDGE



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.