Promotion cannot be denied based on uncommunicated ACR entries as it violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner, a Field Man at the Panabaras Project Division, challenged a promotion order dated December 28, 2022, which promoted private respondents to the post of Assistant Project Ranger while superseding him

The Petitioner argued that his exclusion was based on adverse or below-benchmark Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) that were never communicated to him, depriving him of the opportunity to represent against them

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (the Corporation) contended that the Petitioner was found unsuitable by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) because he secured only 11 marks against a required benchmark of 12

Although the Corporation claimed the ACRs were communicated, they admitted that no signed acknowledgment from the Petitioner was on record

Whether the non-communication of ACR entries used to deny promotion violates the principles of natural justice

Whether an employee can be legally superseded for promotion based on uncommunicated ACR gradings that fall below a prescribed benchmark

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and the "Communication of ACR" doctrine established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It relied on *Dev Dutt v. Union of India* (2008) 8 SCC 725 and *Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India* (2013) 9 SCC 566, which mandate that every ACR entry (even "Good") must be communicated to the employee if it affects promotional prospects

It further cited *Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India* (2018) 18 SCC 640 and *R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur* (2023) 19 SCC 472, affirming that uncommunicated entries cannot be used to defeat a claim for promotion

The Court observed that while the respondents asserted the ACRs were sent via competent authorities, the lack of documentary proof of acknowledgment by the Petitioner was fatal to their case

Following the res integra position of law, the Court reasoned that the right to make a representation against an entry is a fundamental facet of fairness in public employment

Since the Petitioner’s failure to meet the 12-mark benchmark was rooted in evaluations he was never made aware of, the assessment process was mathematically and procedurally flawed

The Court determined that a promotion assessment founded upon such "silent" records cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law

The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the Petitioner’s case for promotion to Assistant Project Ranger within 60 days

Crucially, the Court ordered that any ACR entry not duly communicated and acknowledged shall be excluded from the suitability assessment

If found fit upon reconsideration, the Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits