ACRs earned during ERE within the same organisation cannot be excluded from promotion consideration.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s ACRs earned during ERE service within the Assam Rifles could be excluded when assessing whether he met the MFS-report requirement for promotion to Subedar Major/GD

The court held

The Court set aside the orders dated 5 February 2024 and 13 June 2024.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s promotion case by taking into account his ERE-period ACRs and, if he was otherwise eligible, to consider him for promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with consequential service benefits in accordance with law.

The exercise was to be completed preferably within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, a retired Subedar/GD of the Assam Rifles, challenged the decision that he was ineligible for promotion to Subedar Major/GD because only two of his last five ACRs were Mandatory Field Service (MFS) reports; the other three were earned during Extra Regimental Employment (ERE) at Headquarters 23 Sector Assam Rifles.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4

His “High Average” grading for 2017–18 had been expunged following an earlier writ petition, and a review DPC was convened, but the authorities continued to find him ineligible for want of the prescribed MFS reports.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4

He sought consideration for promotion from 1 March 2019, when his junior was promoted, with consequential benefits.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s ACRs earned during ERE service within the Assam Rifles could be excluded when assessing whether he met the MFS-report requirement for promotion to Subedar Major/GD

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10

ii.2. Whether, upon reconsideration, the petitioner could be considered for promotion from the date his immediate junior was promoted, with consequential service benefits

p. 9 · ¶ 18

03Law Applied

Appendix “B” to ROI 04/2002 was cited by the respondents as requiring three ACRs from Battalion/Assam Rifles Training Centre & School/National Security Guard for promotion consideration.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4, 7

The Court relied on Ige Sora JC-113838 v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 242/2016 (Meghalaya High Court, 5 December 2019), and Samuel Kutty v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 169/2024 (Meghalaya High Court, 13 December 2024), for the principle that ACRs earned during ERE service within the same organisation should not be excluded merely because the officer served on ERE.

pp. 6–7 · ¶ 11–12

The Court distinguished Rajesh Kumar Gurung v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 4336/2020, on its facts.

pp. 5–8 · ¶ 8, 15

04Reasoning

The Court held that the petitioner’s ERE posting was within the Assam Rifles and that the ACRs were earned in the course of his service.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 13–14

His consent to or acceptance of the posting did not justify disregarding those reports.

pp. 7–8 · ¶ 13–14

Because the adverse 2017–18 grading had been expunged, the petitioner’s promotion case had to be reconsidered on the basis of his service-record ACRs, including those earned during ERE; excluding them solely because they were not MFS reports could not sustain the finding of ineligibility.

pp. 8–9 · ¶ 16–17