D.G. Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Nandkumar J. Dalvi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on:14.09.2026
Judgment Pronounced on:27.10.2026
Judgment Uploaded on:27.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010975482007
+ W.P.(C) 1223/2008 & CM APPL. 2358/2008
D.G. EMPLOYEES STATE
INSURANCE CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NANDKUMAR J. DALVI ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Jetely, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Ms. Garima, Ms.
Humaira Salam & Mr Kulwinder Sehjal,
Advs.
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. By the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, the Director General, Employees State Insurance
Corporation (“petitioner”), seeks quashing of the order dated
11.10.2006 (“impugned order”) passed by the learned Chief
Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (“CCPD”) in Case No.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 1 of 19
2930/2004/5947, whereby the learned Chief Commissioner, inter alia ,
observed and directed as under:
“16. In the light of the above discussions, observations and
circumstances. certain common preconceptions on
account of disability of the complainant amongst the
Members of the DPC appear to have worked against the
complainant, resulting in deprivation of reasonable benefit
to him. This Court, therefore, directs the concerned
appointing authority in the Employees State Insurance
Corporation to consider the complainant for promotion to
the post of Superintendent and promote him to that post, if
otherwise found fit, from the year 1989 when the post of
Superintendent was added to the regulations as an
interchangeable post to Insurance Inspector within 3
months from the date of receipt of this Order. It should also
be ensured that the complainant is not declared unfit on
the ground that he did not perform the duties of the post,
which was not assigned to him.”
2. Briefly stated, respondent no.2 joined the Employees State
Insurance Corporation (“ESIC”) as a Lower Division Clerk (“LDC”)
in November 1976 and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk
(“UDC”) in April 1981. Between 1990 and 1992, the respondent no.2
gradually lost his vision and is now totally blind. Thereafter, respondent
no.2 was promoted as Assistant by order dated 17.09.1992 against the
3% reservation for persons with disabilities, but was reverted to UDC
on 23.09.1993 on the ground of being visually impaired.
3. Aggrieved by it, respondent no.2 approached the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (“CAT”) in O.A. No. 886/1994.
During the pendency of the case before the learned CAT, the petitioner,
after a review DPC, promoted respondent no.2 as Assistant by order
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 2 of 19
dated 12.04.2000 retrospectively w.e.f. 24.03.1993. Noting that the
petitioner had corrected the mistake, the learned CAT, by judgment
dated 05.05.2000, disposed of the O.A. and directed payment of the
difference in salary and allowances from 24.09.1993 till 07.05.2000.
4. The next promotional post was of Insurance Inspector/Local
Office Manager/Superintendent (Rs 5500-9000), which was
interchangeable and required three years of regular service as Assistant .
According to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 completed three years
on 23.09.1996 and became eligible from the vacancy year 1996-97; the
respondent no.2 claims eligibility from 21.09.1995. In its order dated
13.10.2011, this Court recorded that respondent no.2 became eligible in
1995/1996 and not in 1989.
5. The respondent no.2’s case was first considered by the
Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) held on 22.02.2001.
According to the petitioner, since the post had not been identified for
visually handicapped persons at that stage, his suitability was not
assessed under the quota for persons with disabilities. Thereafter, the
DPC held on 20.01.2004 considered the respondent no.2’s case both as
a person with disability and in the general category, but did not find him
fit for promotion.
6. Pursuant to the same, respondent no.2 filed a complaint dated
21.04.2003 before the learned CCPD under the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 (“PWD Act”), alleging denial of promotion on
account of his disability. By Record of Proceedings dated 29.10.2004,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 3 of 19
the learned CCPD advised the petitioner to consider respondent no.2
against the reserved vacancies for the DPCs of 1997, 1999 and 2001
and to review the 2004 DPC. A Review DPC (“Review DPC”) held on
06.05.2005 assessed his performance as “Below Average” and did not
find him fit for the vacancy years 1996-97 to 2000-01. The learned
CCPD, not agreeing with the aforesaid assessment, directed a further
Review DPC, which was held on 27.07.2005, which again graded him
“Below Average” and found him unfit. The relevant portions of the
minutes are reproduced below:
“Minutes from meeting held on 06.05.2005
“III. The Review DPC, then, examined the case of Shri N.J.
Dalvi with reference to the DPC minutes dated 22.2.2001.
This DPC had considered the cases of officials in the
feeder cadre for promotion against the vacancies that had
arisen during the following years :-
1. 1997-98
2.1998-99
3. 1999-2000
4. 2000-2001
The decision of the Review DPC in respect of vacancy
years 1997-98 and 1998-99 had already been recorded
after verification of the ACRs of the relevant years. The
case of Shri N.J. Dalvi was, therefore, considered against
the vacancy year 1999-2000 and the ACRs of period from
1993-94 to 1997-98 were verified. Considering the nature
of work done by him during the said period, the Review
DPC assessed his performance as 'Below Average' and did
not find Shri N.J. Dalvi fit for promotion against the
vacancy year 1999-2000
His case was considered for promotion against the
vacancy for the year 2000-01. The ACRS for the period
from 1994-95 to 1998-99 were examined. Considering the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 4 of 19
nature of work done by him during the said period, the
Review DPC assessed his performance as 'Below Average'
and did not find Shri N.J. Dalvi fit for promotion against
the vacancy year 2000-2001
IV. The Review DPC examined the records of the earlier
DPC dated 21.1.2004 and found that the decision taken by
the DPC concerned did not require modification.
While considering the case of Shri N. J. Dalvi for
promotion under the quota for the Physically
Handicapped, the Review DPC arrived at its decisions on
the basis of work performed by the official and also the
manner of performance with reference to the nature of
work expected from the officials in the cadre of U.D.C. and
Assistant. Although the Review DPC was aware that the
official was totally blind it did not take that fact into
account while assessing his case.”
Minutes from meeting held on 27.07.2005
“ The Review DPC sought to arrive at an objective
assessment of suitability of Shri N.J. Dalvi for promotion.
The Review DPC kept in view that the 'evaluation of ACRs
should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. The Review
DPC sought to ensure justice in the process of assessment
of the ACRS, keeping in view the basic fact that inter-
personal comparison is an element of natural justice. It
had, therefore, examined the records of Shri N. J. Dalvi
and the records of the other officials who were also not
found fit by the earlier DPCs in spite of the fact that
nothing adverse had been recorded in their ACRs. The
Review DPC was not guided by the overall grading that
was recorded in the ACRs. It made its own assessment on
the basis of the entries in the ACRs.
The Review DPC made its assessment on the basis of
assessment made by reporting/ reviewing officers about
different attributes, quality of work of the officials. The
nature of work done, the knowledge of rule and regulations
in general, the ability to apply rules and regulations
correctly, the capacity for examining the cases thoroughly
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 5 of 19
and comprehensively, the quality of noting and drafting,
etc ., by these Assistants were considered and compared
by the Review DPC. Considering the nature of reports,
thus, as a whole, the DPC graded the performance of
Shri N.J. Dalvi as Assistant as ‘Below Average’. He was,
therefore, not found fit for promotion to the cadre of
Insurance Inspector
While considering the case of Shri N. J. Dalvi for
promotion under the quota for the Physically Handicapped
the Review DPC arrived at its decisions, as in the case of
the others, on the basis of the entries in the ACRs regarding
the work performed by the official, the manner of
performance, the different attributes for the work and the
quality of the work in the cadre of U.D.C. and Assistant.
For reasons recorded above, the Review DPC found that
the decision of the Review DPC in its meeting held on
6.5.2005 arrived at on bona fide grounds is not required to
be modified or altered.”
7. By the impugned order the learned CCPD held, inter alia , that:
(a) the post was identified for blind persons and the respondent no.2
ought to have been considered by the DPCs of 1997, 1999 and 2001;
(b) the respondent no.2’s ACRs (1975–2004) had no adverse remarks
and nothing showed refusal of assigned work; (c) the petitioner itself
had assigned him particular work and the DPC knew he was not doing
the work of his counterparts, so that, on the ACRs, it was “clearly his
disability” because of which he was graded “Below Average” ,
amounting to discrimination; (d) having promoted him as Assistant , the
petitioner could not deny further promotion for not being deployed on
an Assistant’s work; and (e) the posts being interchangeable, he could
be posted as Superintendent.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 6 of 19
8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessment
of an officer’s suitability for promotion falls within the specialized
domain of the DPC, and the same principle applies to a Review DPC.
He submitted that the DPC is required to assess the record of an officer
as a whole and is not bound merely by the absence of an adverse remark
in the ACR. He further placed reliance on paragraphs 6.1.2, 6.1.3 and
6.2.1(e) of the DoPT O.M. dated 10.04.1989.
10. He submitted that the respondent no.2’s candidature had been
considered on more than one occasion by the DPCs and the Review
DPCs. He submitted that the assessment was made with reference to the
same parameters, including the nature of work performed, knowledge
and application of rules, ability to examine cases thoroughly and the
quality of noting and drafting.
11. He further submitted that Section 47(2) of PWD Act, only
prohibits denial of promotion merely on the ground of disability. It does
not, however, empower the learned CCPD to substitute its own
assessment of the respondent no.2’s suitability for promotion for that of
the DPC.
12. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that
the respondent no.2’s case was not based merely on the absence of
adverse remarks in his ACRs. He submitted that the respondent no.2
had earlier been promoted in 1992 and was thereafter demoted on
account of his disability. He submitted that the petitioner had
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 7 of 19
subsequently conceded its error before the learned CAT, and the
promotion was restored retrospectively with effect from 24.09.1993. He
submitted that this history was relevant to examine whether the
respondent no.2's subsequent assessments were also affected, directly
or indirectly, by his disability.
13. He submitted that, under the applicable norms, a visually
impaired officer in the respondent no.2’s position was required to be
assisted, but no such assistance was ever provided to the respondent
no.2. Despite this, the DPC and Review DPC erred in assessing the
respondent no.2 on parameters such as the volume and independent
handling of work. He further submitted that the respondent no.2’s
performance could not fairly be assessed without taking into account
the absence of the assistance which the petitioner itself was required to
provide.
14. He further submitted that the learned CCPD, while exercising its
statutory duty under Section 59 of the PWD Act, 1995, examined the
assessment of the DPC to determine whether the assessment process
itself had placed the respondent no.2 at a disadvantage on account of
his disability.
ANALYSIS
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
16. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 was rightly
assessed and graded as “Below Average” by the DPCs and, thereafter,
by the Review DPCs, on an assessment of his overall performance and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 8 of 19
suitability and that the learned CCPD erred in concluding that the
assessment was influenced by preconceived notions arising from the
respondent no.2’s disability and in treating the absence of adverse
remarks in the ACRs as determinative of his suitability for promotion.
Furthermore, the learned CCPD failed to appreciate the distinction
between the absence of adverse remarks in the ACRs and the
independent assessment of comparative suitability by the DPCs.
17. Principal grievance of the respondent no.2 was that his
performance was assessed without adequately accounting for the
disadvantage arising from his visual impairment and lack of assistance
and that the petitioner was required to provide appropriate assistance to
a visually impaired employee. In the absence of such assistance the
performance of respondent no.2 could not have been fairly assessed on
parameters such as the volume and independent handling of work in the
same manner as that of an employee who did not suffer from such
disability.
18. There can be no dispute that eligibility for consideration for
promotion does not, by itself, confer a right to promotion. It only entitles
an employee to consideration in accordance with the applicable rules.
19. It is relevant to note that the mere absence of adverse remarks in
the ACRs cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of an employee’s
suitability for promotion. The DPC is required to undertake an
independent assessment of the service record and the entries contained
in the ACRs and determine the comparative suitability of the officers
under consideration. In this regard, the instructions issued by the DoPT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 9 of 19
vide O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt. (D) Dated 10.04.1989 specifically
contemplates an independent and objective assessment by the DPC,
based upon the entries contained in the ACRs as a whole. The relevant
provisions of the aforesaid O.M. are reproduced below:
“Para 6.1.2: The DPC enjoy full discretion to devise their
own methods and procedures for objective assessment of
the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by
them"
Para 6.1.3: While merit has to be recognized and
rewarded, advancement in an officer's career should not
be regarded as a matter of course but should be earned by
dint of hard work, good conduct and result-oriented
performance as reflected in the ACRs and based on strict
and rigorous selection process."
Para 6.2.1 (e): The DPC should not be guided merely by
the overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs
but should make its own assessment on the basis of entries
in the CRs, because it has been noticed that some times,
the overall grading in a CR may be inconsistent with the
grading under various parameters or attributes."
20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India &Anr v. S.K. Goel
and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 641 , considered the scope of assessment
by a DPC and observed that the absence of adverse remarks in the
confidential reports, by itself, does not preclude the DPC from making
an independent assessment of the suitability and merit of the officer.
The Court further held that the DPC is not required to be guided merely
by the overall grading recorded in the confidential reports, but is entitled
to make its own assessment based on the entries contained therein. The
relevant observations of the Court are reproduced below:
“27. In our opinion, the judgment of the Tribunal does not
call for any interference inasmuch as it followed the well-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 10 of 19
settled dictum of service jurisprudence that there will
ordinarily be no interference by the courts of law in the
proceedings and recommendations of DPC unless such
DPC meetings are held illegally or in gross violation of the
rules or there is misgrading of confidential reports. In the
present case, DPC had made an overall assessment of all
the relevant confidential reports of the eligible officers
who were being considered. DPC considered the remarks
of the reviewing officers. There was clear application of
mind. Respondent no.2 1 did fulfil the benchmark. Hence,
the impugned direction of the High Court ought not to have
been issued as the same will have the impact of causing
utter confusion and chaos in the cadre of the Indian
Revenue Service and the Customs and Central Excise
Service.
28. It was also argued by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for Respondent no.2 1 that the entries for the
period had an element of adverse reflection and for that
purpose the seniority of Respondent no.2 1 was
downgraded and, therefore, ACR ought to have been
communicated to Respondent no.2 1. In our opinion, the
observations of the High Court are wholly unjustified
inasmuch as the post of the Commissioner of Customs and
Central Excise is a post required to be filled up on
selection made strictly on the basis of merit. No judicial
review of the DPC proceedings, which are ordinarily
conducted in accordance with the standing government
instructions and rules is warranted. The norms and
procedure for DPC are prescribed in OM dated 10-4-1989.
It is thus seen that the decision taken by the appellants has
been as per the instructions issued on the subject that only
adverse entries and remarks are to be communicated and
there is no provision to communicate the downgrading of
ACR to a government employee. The decision of the
Central Government is in strict accordance with the
prevailing rules and government instructions. In the
absence of any violation, the impugned order of the High
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 11 of 19
Court while undertaking a judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, is wholly unjustified. Since
the matter of seniority has been well settled and this Court
in a plethora of cases has held that the seniority/promotion
granted on the strength of DPC selection should not be
unsettled after a lapse of time. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, where there are no
adverse remarks whatsoever against Respondent no.2 1,
the High Court ought not to have interfered with and
passed the impugned direction. This apart, as per the
instructions contained in Para 6.21 of DOP&T Order No.
22011/5/86/Estt. D dated 19-4-1981, as amended, DPC is
not required to be guided merely by the overall grading,
if any, that may be recorded in CRs but to make its own
assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs. DPC
enjoyed full discretion to devise its method and procedure
for objective assessment of suitability and merit of the
candidate being considered by it. Hence, the impugned
order of the High Court, in our opinion, is liable to be set.”
21. In the present case, however, the learned CCPD proceeded on the
premise that, in the absence of any adverse remark in the ACRs, the
assessment of “Below Average” by the DPCs could not be sustained.
Such an approach, however, does not accord with the applicable DoPT
instructions or the law governing assessment by a DPC. While the
absence of an adverse remark may constitute a relevant circumstance,
it does not, by itself, preclude the DPC from making an independent
assessment of the officer’s comparative merit and suitability on the
basis of the record. The DPCs were, therefore, not required to
mechanically adopt the overall grading reflected in the ACRs, nor was
the absence of an adverse entry sufficient, by itself, to warrant a finding
that the respondent no.2 was fit for promotion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 12 of 19
22. At the same time, the material placed on record shows that the
respondent no.2’s case was considered on more than one occasion by
the DPCs and was thereafter reconsidered by the Review DPCs. The
Review DPCs, constituted pursuant to the proceedings before the
learned CCPD, also assessed the respondent no.2 and arrived at the
conclusion that his performance was “Below Average” and that he was
not fit for promotion. The minutes of the Review DPCs themselves
show that the assessment took into account, inter alia , the nature of
work handled by the respondent no.2, his knowledge and application of
the relevant rules, his ability to examine cases thoroughly and
comprehensively, and the quality of his noting and drafting.
23. The finding of the learned CCPD that the DPCs were influenced
by preconceived notions regarding the respondent no.2’s visual
impairment is not borne out by any specific material on record. The
impugned order does not identify any observation made by the DPCs,
any criterion applied by them, or any part of the assessment which
demonstrates that the respondent no.2 was found unsuitable because of
his visual impairment. The mere fact that the respondent no.2 was
visually impaired and was nevertheless assessed as “Below
Average” cannot, in itself, lead to the conclusion that his disability was
the reason for the assessment.
24. It is pertinent to note that Section 47(2) of the PWD Act, does not
confer an unconditional right to promotion upon a person with
disability. It prohibits denial of promotion merely on the ground of
disability. The question, therefore, is whether the respondent no.2 was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 13 of 19
found unfit on the basis of an assessment of his performance and
suitability, or whether his disability itself operated as the ground for
such assessment. Section 47(2) of the PWD Act is reproduced below:
“47. (1) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in
rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his
service.
Provided that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is
not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted
to some other post with the same pay scale and service
benefits.
Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the
employee against any post, he may be kept on a
supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he
attains the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier.
(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the
ground of his disability:
Provided that the appropriate Government may, having
regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment,
by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as
may be specified in such notification, exempt any
establishment from the provisions of this section.”
25. The scope of the expression ‘merely on the ground of his
disability’ has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of
India v. Devendra Kumar Pant, (2009) 14 SCC 546 . The Hon’ble Apex
Court, while examining the expression ‘merely on the ground of his
disability’ occurring in Section 47(2) of the PWD Act, held that the
provision bars disability per se from being treated as a disqualification
for promotion. At the same time, the Hon’ble Apex Court recognised
that the statutory protection does not dispense with the requirement of
the employee satisfying the standards applicable to the higher post. The
material on record shows that the DPCs which considered the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 14 of 19
respondent no.2’s case assessed him with reference to his service record
and the parameters reflected in the relevant minutes. The Review DPCs,
upon reconsideration, arrived at the same conclusion. The relevant
portion of Union of India v. Devendra Kumar Pant (supra) is
reproduced below:
“37. Prescription of a minimum medical standard for
promotion should be considered as such, and should not
be viewed as denial of a promotional opportunity to a
person with disability. We may illustrate. When an
advertisement for the post of a police inspector prescribes
a minimum height or a minimum chest measurements or a
minimum physical stamina, a person who lacks the same
and therefore denied appointment, cannot contend that he
is discriminated on the ground of physical disability.
Firstly, being short or very thin or lacking stamina is not a
physical disability but a physical characteristic. Therefore,
in such a situation the question of applicability of the Act
does not arise at all. If a person not having a colour
perception is denied appointment to the post of a driver, he
cannot complain that he is discriminated on the ground of
his disability. Same would be the position where the colour
perception is a required minimum standard for a particular
post. A person not possessing it is not being denied
appointment or promotion on the ground of disability. The
denial is on the ground of non-fulfilment of minimum
required standard/qualification. Viewed accordingly, it
will be seen that Section 47(2) is not attracted at all.
38. Therefore, we are of the view that Section 47(2) only
provides that a person who is otherwise eligible for
promotion shall not be denied promotion merely on the
ground that he suffers from disability. The use of the
words "merely on the ground' shows that the section does
not provide that if the disability comes in the way of
performing the higher duties and functions associated
with the promotional post, promotion shall not be denied .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 15 of 19
In other words promotion shall not be denied to a person
on the ground of his disability only if the disability does
not affect his capacity to discharge the higher functions of
a promotional post.”
26. The aforesaid principle is relevant in the present case only to the
extent that it distinguishes between denial of promotion merely on
account of disability and an assessment of suitability based on standards
legitimately applicable to the promotional post.
27. It is also well settled that, while exercising supervisory
jurisdiction, Courts, Tribunals or authorities do not sit in appeal over the
assessment made by a duly constituted DPC. Interference is warranted
where the decision is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, and non-
application of mind, consideration of irrelevant material or violation of
a mandatory requirement. Assessment of comparative merit cannot be
substituted with a subjective view for that of the body entrusted with
such assessment.
28. Examined in this backdrop, the reasoning adopted by the learned
CCPD cannot be sustained to the extent that it treats the absence of
adverse remarks in the ACRs as determinative of the respondent no.2’s
suitability for promotion. As noticed above, the DPC was required to
make its own assessment based on the service record as a whole. The
absence of an adverse remark may be a circumstance to be considered,
but it cannot, by itself, displace the assessment made by the DPC on the
comparative suitability of the respondent no.2.
29. The second aspect of the impugned order, that the DPCs were
influenced by preconceived notions relating to the respondent no.2’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 16 of 19
disability, stands on a different footing. The previous demotion of the
respondent no.2 on account of his disability is certainly a relevant
circumstance. However, the said incident pertains to an earlier stage of
his service and was subsequently corrected by the petitioner. It cannot,
without further material, lead to an inference that the subsequent DPCs
and Review DPCs were similarly influenced by the respondent no.2’s
disability.
30. Significantly, the respondent no.2’s case was considered on
successive occasions and was also subjected to review pursuant to the
proceedings before the learned CCPD. The Review DPCs also arrived
at the conclusion that the respondent no.2’s performance was “Below
Average”. There is no specific material placed before this Court
demonstrating that the DPCs treated the respondent no.2’s visual
impairment as a disqualification for promotion or that any criterion was
applied to him solely on account of his disability. In the absence of such
material, the finding that the assessment was the result of preconceived
notions cannot be sustained merely on inference.
31. The respondent no.2 has also contended that no helper was
provided to him and that his performance could not have been fairly
assessed on parameters such as volume and independent handling of
work. It is pertinent to note that in respondent no.2’s complaint dated
21.04.2003 and representation dated 14.07.2003 before the learned
CCPD, the respondent no.2 has nowhere stated that he had sought a
helper and that the request was declined. The impugned order also
records no such finding, and the minutes of the Review DPCs also do
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 17 of 19
not refer to any such request. The plea was raised for the first time in
the additional affidavit filed in the present proceedings, more than
seventeen years after his reversion. In the absence of any material to
show that assistance was sought and denied, the respondent no.2 cannot
contend that his assessment was vitiated on this ground.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that the DPCs and the Review DPCs were entitled to undertake an
independent assessment of the respondent no.2’s overall performance
and comparative suitability for promotion. The absence of adverse
remarks in the ACRs did not, by itself, confer upon the respondent no.2
a right to promotion, nor did it preclude the DPCs from recording a
“Below Average” assessment based on the service record.
33. Having regard to the considerable time that has elapsed and the
fact that the respondent no.2 has since attained the age of
superannuation, a direction for actual promotion would no longer serve
any practical purpose, as no specific material has been placed before
this Court to demonstrate that the DPCs or the Review DPCs treated his
visual impairment as a disqualification or otherwise assessed his
suitability on a criterion which was discriminatory on account of his
disability.
34. The previous demotion of the respondent no.2 cannot by itself be
treated as proof that the subsequent DPCs acted on the same
consideration. Equally, the absence of adverse remarks in the ACRs
cannot be treated as sufficient to displace the independent assessment
made by the DPCs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 18 of 19
35. In the absence of any material establishing arbitrariness,
perversity, non-application of mind, or that the respondent no.2’s
disability was the operative ground for denial of promotion, this Court
finds no basis to interfere with the assessment made by the DPCs and
the Review DPCs.
36. The learned CCPD, therefore, erred in treating the absence of
adverse remarks as determinative of the respondent no.2’s suitability
and in concluding that the assessment had been influenced by the
respondent no.2’s disability without identifying any material
establishing a nexus between the disability and the assessment made by
the DPCs.
37. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 11.10.2006 cannot be
sustained. The impugned order dated 11.10.2006 is, accordingly, set
aside. The assessment made by the DPCs and the Review DPCs shall
remain undisturbed.
38. The present petition is, accordingly, allowed in the aforesaid
terms. The pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:27.10.2026
20:48:23
W.P.(C) 1223/2008 Page 19 of 19