Non-Availability of APARs Cannot Justify Denying Promotion Where Guidelines Mandate Consideration of Preceding Years' Records

The applicant, a Superintendent (previously Inspector) in the Central Excise Department, joined the service in 1996.

Between August 2013 and June 2017, he served on deputation as a PA-cum-Confidential Assistant in the COIN Unit, Dubai, under the Ministry of External Affairs.

During this period, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on March 31, 2014, to promote Inspectors to Superintendents. Although the applicant was eligible and within the zone of consideration, the DPC did not recommend him because his APARs for 2010–11 and 2012–13 were unavailable.

Consequently, his juniors were promoted in 2014, while he was only promoted in April 2018 after returning from deputation and obtaining "No Report Certificates" (NRCs).

The applicant challenged the order dated March 11, 2022, which rejected his claim for retrospective proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted.

1. Whether the non-availability of APARs/ACRs for specific years constitutes a valid ground to deny an official consideration for promotion when guidelines prescribe alternative assessment methods.

2. Whether an employee on deputation is entitled to proforma promotion under the "Next Below Rule" (NBR) when juniors in the parent cadre are promoted.

Para 6.2.1(c) of DoPT O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10.04.1989, which mandates that if CRs are unavailable for the relevant period, the DPC should consider CRs of preceding years or the lower grade.

Paras 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 of DoPT O.M. No. 22011/5/86-Estt(D) dated 10.04.1989, which stipulate that officers on deputation must be included in the DPC consideration list and their deputation service treated as comparable service in the parent department.

The principle of Proforma Promotion/Next Below Rule, ensuring that an officer on deputation is not penalized for their absence from the parent cadre.

The Tribunal found that the DPC’s decision to exclude the applicant due to missing APARs was formally "arbitrary and unjustified".

It reasoned that the applicant went on deputation with due approval, and at that time, the APARs for the preceding years (e.g., 2010–11) should have already been in the department's custody.

The DPC failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Para 6.2.1(c) of the 1989 O.M., which requires the committee to look at older records if recent ones are missing, rather than simply disqualifying the candidate.

The Tribunal further noted that since the applicant was subsequently promoted in 2018 based on NRCs, it proved that the initial non-availability of APARs was not the applicant's fault.

Consequently, the department's refusal to grant proforma promotion—despite the applicant fulfilling eligibility criteria—violated settled administrative law regarding the protection of seniority for officers on deputation.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned order dated March 11, 2022 and directed the respondents to convene a Review DPC to reconsider the applicant’s case vis-à-vis his juniors as of 2014 and to grant him proforma promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, provided he is otherwise found eligible.