Service Law – High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 – Promotion – Reliance upon uncommunicated adverse ACRs – Impermissibility of – Held: Uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion – In the present case, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021 to be considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20 and taking into consideration the ACRs for the years 201718 & 2018-19 for which the petitioner was having “Very Good” gradings – DPC proceedings dated 09.04.2021 denying the promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar quashed and set aside – Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967 .
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case the dispute is with respect to the post of Assistant Registrar in the High Court of Manipur. Prior to the Rules 2020, the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was governed by the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967. However, the Manipur High Court framed its own rules namely Rules, 2020. The DPC met to fill up the post of Assistant Registrar on 09.04.2021. Therefore, as such the Rules, 2020 which were prevailing at the time when the DPC met were rightly considered. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that for the post of promotion to the Assistant Registrar the ACRs of preceding four years from the date of DPC were required to be taken into consideration. Therefore, in the present case the ACRs for the period between 2016- 2017 to 2019-2020 were required to be taken into consideration and in fact taken into consideration. As observed hereinabove out of 100 marks ACR weightage was of 80 marks. [Paras 6 and 6.3][103-A-C, F-G]
1.2 In the present case the petitioner got “Good” gradings for the year 2016-17 and received “Very Good” gradings in her ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-2019. It was the specific case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that the ACRs grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was never communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. Therefore, uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17 having the grading “Good” could not have been relied upon for consideration for promotion. Similarly, so far as the ACR gradings for the year 20192020 is concerned, admittedly the same was communicated to the petitioner on 08.04.2021, just one day before the DPC met on 09.04.2021. The petitioner was having 15 days’ time to make the representation against the ACR grading for the year 20192020. Before the 15 days were over, the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. The petitioner was having 15 days’ time from 08.04.2021 to make a representation. Therefore, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR for the year 2019-2020 ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR. As the ACR Grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was not communicated till the DPC met, the same is to be ignored and/ or be not relied upon for consideration of promotion. Similarly, the grading for the year 2019-2020 also is to be excluded and/or be not relied upon for consideration for promotion as the same was communicated on 08.04.2021 and the petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to make representation and before the representation could be made the DPC met on 09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. [Paras 6.4, 6.5 and 6.7][103-H; 104-A-G]
1.3 The DPC proceedings dated 09.04.2021 denying the promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar are hereby quashed and set aside. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021 i.e., the date on which the juniors came to be promoted is directed to be considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20 and thereafter the DPC/competent authority to take a fresh decision in accordance with law and taking into consideration the ACRs of remaining years, i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19. In case after fresh exercise the petitioner is promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits including the arrears, seniority etc. w.e.f. 09.04.2021 - the day on which the juniors came to be promoted. [Paras 8, 8.1][105-E-H]
Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others (2013) 9 SCC 566 : [2013] 5 SCR 1004; Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and others, (2018) 18 SCC 640; Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, (2008) 8 SCC
725 : [2008] 8 SCR 174 – relied on.
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 680; Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v.
Chairman, UPSC (2015) 14 SCC 427 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.