Uncommunicated ACR entries cannot lawfully be considered by the DPC for promotion.

The petitioner, Rameshwar Kumar, sought consideration for promotion from the post of Deputy Director of Prosecution to Joint Director, Prosecution, asserting that his juniors had been promoted while his case had not been considered.

He also sought promotion with retrospective effect from the date on which his juniors were promoted, together with consequential benefits, and consideration of his case in the forthcoming or review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).

The petitioner submitted that he had already made a detailed representation, which remained undecided.

The State did not oppose the petitioner’s limited request for a direction to submit and have a fresh representation considered.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the competent authority to reconsider his claim for promotion, particularly when his juniors had allegedly been promoted and his representation remained undecided?

2. Whether uncommunicated adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) could be relied upon by the DPC to deny promotion or promotional benefits?

3. Whether an employee not responsible for the department’s failure to consider his promotion could be denied consequential benefits on the basis of the principle of “no work, no pay”?

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution and the settled principle that adverse or below-benchmark ACR entries affecting promotion must be communicated to the employee, who must be given an opportunity to make a representation; uncommunicated entries cannot lawfully be relied upon by the DPC.

This principle was drawn from Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, and Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India, (2009) 16 SCC 146 / (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 959.

The Court also relied on Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab, (1979) 2 SCC 368, and subsequent decisions including Kaluram Patidar v. State of M.P., Rajendra Kumar Verma v. State of M.P., Higher Education Department v. Dr. (Smt.) Kavita Bundela, and Mehfooz Ahmad v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 (3) JLJ 17, which reaffirm that uncommunicated ACRs cannot form the basis for denying promotion.

On consequential benefits, the Court relied on Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai, (2007) 6 SCC 524, and related decisions, holding that “no work, no pay” may not apply where the employee was not at fault and was prevented by departmental inaction from occupying the promotional post.

The Court noted the petitioner’s allegation that juniors had been promoted while his case had not been considered and accepted that his existing representation had not been decided.

Since the State did not oppose the limited relief sought, the Court did not directly determine the petitioner’s entitlement to promotion or retrospective benefits.

Instead, it directed the petitioner to submit a fresh and detailed representation.

While requiring the competent authority to decide that representation, the Court directed it to apply the settled law concerning uncommunicated ACRs, including the decisions discussed in paragraphs 5 to 9, and to pass a reasoned order after granting the petitioner a personal hearing.

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh, detailed representation within two weeks.

The competent authority was directed to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving the petitioner a personal hearing and considering the cited precedents, within one month from receipt of a certified copy of the order.