THE STATE OF HARYANA versus ASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.

THE STATE OF HARYANA versus ASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.

The timelines in the Schedule to the PAR Rules, though contravened, did not render the PAR entries invalid because Rule 5(1) was complied with; where no express serious consequence is prescribed for breach of a timeline, the timeline is directory; the High Court erred in substituting its judgment for the executive on a specialized administrative evaluation; the High Court order setting aside the CAT order was therefore set aside and the Accepting Authority was directed to decide the pending representation within 60 days.

Parties
Appellant: The State of Haryana; Respondent: Ashok Khemka
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 18.03.2019 in CWP No.317 of 2019
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Performance Appraisal Report, Timelines Under PAR Rules, Judicial Review Under Article 226, Empanelment and Promotion
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Service Law Performance Appraisal Report Timelines Under PAR Rules Judicial Review Under Article 226 Empanelment and Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State of Haryana

Appellant

Ashok Khemka

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 18.03.2019 in CWP No.317 of 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should have interfered with the CAT order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226
  2. 2 Whether contravention of the timelines in the Schedule to the PAR Rules renders entries in the PAR invalid
  3. 3 Whether the Accepting Authority complied with Rule 5(1) of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007

Ratio Decidendi

The timelines in the Schedule to the PAR Rules, though contravened, did not render the PAR entries invalid because Rule 5(1) was complied with; where no express serious consequence is prescribed for breach of a timeline, the timeline is directory; the High Court erred in substituting its judgment for the executive on a specialized administrative evaluation; the High Court order setting aside the CAT order was therefore set aside and the Accepting Authority was directed to decide the pending representation within 60 days.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside

Orders

  • Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 18.03.2019 set aside
  • Accepting Authority directed to decide the Underlying Representation under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules within 60 days from date of judgment