Efficiency bar stoppage requires timely review of service record; delayed, unsupported action was held arbitrary and unfair.

The rules required the competent authority to review the service record in advance and pass a positive order after the prescribed yearly exercise before stopping crossing of the efficiency bar. Because no timely order was made until September 1984, the respondent's record had already been found satisfactory with a recommendation for promotion, and the bar was stopped without the mandated periodic review after the relevant period had effectively passed, the action was treated as arbitrary, unjust and unfair. The Tribunal's view was upheld, and the special leave petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order stopping the respondent from crossing the efficiency bar was justified.

Analysis: The rules required the competent authority to consider the service record in advance and to make a positive order after the prescribed yearly exercise. No timely order was passed till September 1984, and the respondent's record had been found satisfactory with a recommendation for promotion. The stopping of the efficiency bar was made without the mandated periodic review and after the respondent had already crossed the relevant period in the normal course.

Conclusion: The stoppage of crossing the efficiency bar was arbitrary, unjust and unfair, and the Tribunal's view was correct. The special leave petition was dismissed.

---