Facts
The petitioner, enrolled in the Assam Rifles in 1992, rose to the rank of Warrant Officer/GD in 2014
Source reference: p. 2In 2024, despite being the senior-most candidate and fulfilling qualitative requirements, he was bypassed for promotion to Naib Subedar/GD while his juniors were promoted
Source reference: p. 3Upon inquiry, the respondents informed the petitioner via letter dated 17.10.2024 that his promotion was denied because his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 2019 was graded "Average" (2 points), which fell below the mandatory benchmark of "High Average/Above Average"
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner challenged this denial on the grounds that the adverse/below-benchmark grading was never communicated to him, depriving him of the opportunity to file a representation
Source reference: p. 3-4The respondents argued that the petition was premature due to the availability of alternative remedies under Section 15 of the Assam Rifles Act, 2006
Source reference: p. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities could legally rely on an uncommunicated ACR grading that fell below the promotional benchmark to deny the petitioner’s promotion.
Source reference: p. 4, 72. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative redressal mechanism within the Assam Rifles.
Source reference: p. 6Law Applied
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, which held that every entry in an ACR (whether poor, average, or even "good" if it falls below a benchmark) must be communicated to the employee to satisfy the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution
Source reference: p. 4, 7Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 566
Source reference: p. 4Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal (2022) SCC Online SC 1291, establishing that uncommunicated entries cannot be acted upon to the detriment of an employee and must be expunged or ignored
Source reference: p. 7Reasoning
The court observed that it was undisputed that the "Average/Good" grading for the year 2018-2019 was never communicated to the petitioner
Source reference: p. 7Applying the Dev Dutt precedent, the court reasoned that any entry that acts as a barrier to promotion—regardless of whether it is technically "adverse"—must be disclosed to the employee to allow for a representation
Source reference: p. 7The court found that the respondents’ failure to communicate the grading rendered its use by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) arbitrary and violative of Article 14
Source reference: p. 7Regarding the respondents' argument on alternative remedies, the court determined that since the action was fundamentally illegal and contrary to settled law, judicial intervention was warranted
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The court allowed the writ petition, holding that the denial of promotion based on an uncommunicated ACR entry is unsustainable
The court directed the respondent authorities to ignore the uncommunicated grading for the year 2018-2019 and consider the petitioner for promotion to Naib Subedar/GD based on his seniority
Source reference: p. 8The respondents were ordered to grant the promotion effective from the date his junior was promoted, including all consequential service benefits, within three months
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
No Jc 0110717Y Naib Subedar/Gd (General Duty) Piar SinghvsUnion Of India And 2 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in