Non-communication of "Good" ACR gradings is arbitrary and such entries cannot preclude promotion to higher grades.

The applicant, a Senior Section Engineer in East Coast Railway, challenged his non-selection for promotion to Group-B/ASTE against the 70% quota vacancies for the years 2009-11 and 2011-13.

Although he passed the written and medical tests, he failed to score the minimum 15 marks required in the "record of service" category because his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding five years were graded only as "Good" rather than "Very Good".

The respondents did not communicate these "Good" ratings to the applicant, arguing that under Master Circular No. 28/91, only "adverse" remarks (such as "Average" or specific negative entries) required communication.

During the pendency of the litigation, the applicant retired from service.

1. Whether the non-communication of "Good" ACR gradings, which fell below the required benchmark for promotion, is legally sustainable.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential benefits after superannuation if the promotion was denied based on uncommunicated ACRs.

The Tribunal applied the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008), Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India (2009), and Sukhdev Singh v. UOI & Ors. (2013), which mandate that every entry in an ACR (whether "Average", "Good", "Very Good", or "Outstanding") must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period.

The core legal doctrine is that non-communication of any entry that affects an employee's promotion prospects results in civil consequences and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal also relied on the relief framework from Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar, which allows for retrospective promotion for pensionary purposes without back wages if the employee has since retired.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ reliance on Master Circular No. 28/91 was misplaced and contrary to settled law.

The court reasoned that even though a "Good" rating is not "adverse" in a general sense, it becomes "adverse" in the context of a selection process where the benchmark for promotion is higher (e.g., "Very Good").

Since the applicant's juniors were promoted based on higher gradings while the applicant was kept in the dark regarding his own ratings, the selection process was flawed.

Because the applicant had already superannuated, the Tribunal determined that a physical promotion was impossible, and following the Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar precedent, the uncommunicated ACRs should be ignored for the purpose of assessing eligibility for the benefits of promotion.

It held that the applicant is deemed to have been promoted to Group-B/ASTE from the date his juniors (Respondents 4 and 5) were promoted.

The Court directed that while the applicant is not entitled to back wages (pay or allowances) for the period he did not work in the higher grade, his retrospective promotion must be considered for the purpose of re-fixation of his pension and other retiral benefits.