Non-communication of Performance Appraisal entries and arbitrary ex-parte grading vitiates promotion process as unfair.

The petitioner, an Assistant Manager (Scale-I) at Tripura Gramin Bank since 2020, sought promotion to Manager (Scale-II) under the "First Track Channel" per the promotion policy dated 27.11.2024

The promotion criteria allocated 30 marks to Performance Appraisal Reports (APR)

While the petitioner was awarded 88/100 marks for the year 2024, the Bank authorities assigned him a "default rating" of 59 marks for the preceding four years, claiming he failed to submit self-appraisals

The petitioner challenged this as arbitrary, asserting that at least the 2022 appraisal had been duly submitted and acknowledged

He further contended that the non-communication of APR scores deprived him of the right to represent against them

1. Whether the non-communication of Annual Performance Report (APR) scores and the assignment of a "default rating" of 59 marks for promotion purposes is legally sustainable

2. Whether the Bank’s failure to consider the petitioner’s submitted appraisals violates the principles of natural justice and established service jurisprudence

The Court primarily relied on the principles of natural justice and the legal doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013), which mandate the communication of all ACR/APR entries (whether fair, poor, or good) to an employee to allow for representation

It further applied the precedent set in Dr. Indira Saranath v. Union of India Anr. (2026), which holds that non-communication of service records causes prejudice and entitles the employee to fair redressal and a re-evaluation of candidature

The Court observed a clear contradiction between the Bank's claim that the petitioner was a "default" non-submitter and the evidence provided by the petitioner (Annexure-15) proving the Bank acknowledged receipt of his 2022 APR

The Court reasoned that assigning a low "default" score of 59 without communicating the same was arbitrary and contrary to the "fair play" doctrine required in administrative functions

It noted that since the petitioner secured a high score of 88 in 2024, the arbitrary "default" marks for previous years significantly prejudiced his promotion prospects

The Court concluded that the Bank either intentionally suppressed or negligently failed to consider the actual records, necessitating judicial intervention to rectify the breach of natural justice

The Court directed the respondents to: (i) consider the petitioner’s actual APR scores for the four years prior to 2023-24 based on his self-appraisals; (ii) if records are missing, allow the petitioner to re-submit them; and (iii) re-evaluate his promotion eligibility, potentially by creating a supernumerary post if found suitable. This exercise must be completed within three months