Uncommunicated adverse ACR entries cannot prejudice consideration for future contractual or State appointments.

The appellant was appointed as Assistant Project Officer (Contract) under the MNREGA Scheme pursuant to a 2013 selection process and served on a contractual basis for approximately six years.

His contractual engagement was extended from time to time but was ultimately discontinued and not further extended by order dated 03.04.2019, allegedly on the basis of adverse entries in his ACR/PAR relating to his performance during 2016–2017.

The appellant contended that the adverse entries had never been communicated to him and that he was denied an opportunity to represent against them, contrary to natural justice and the applicable service procedure.

He had earlier approached the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 4937 of 2018 and was granted liberty to pursue an appellate remedy.

His appeal before the Commissioner, MGNREGA, was rejected on 22.12.2018.

He thereafter filed W.P.(S) No. 4387 of 2019 challenging the discontinuance and rejection of his appeal.

The learned Single Judge held that the procedure for communicating adverse ACRs had not been followed, but declined to direct continuation of the expired contractual engagement.

Instead, the Court directed that the uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not prejudice the appellant’s candidature for any future contractual or other appointment under the State or its instrumentalities.

Whether the appellant’s contractual engagement could be discontinued or not extended on the basis of adverse ACR/PAR entries that had not been communicated to him or made subject to representation?

Whether expiry of the contractual term entitled the appellant to continuation or further extension of his contractual employment despite the adverse assessment relied upon by the authorities?

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge disclosed any palpable infirmity or perversity warranting interference in an intra-court appeal?

The Court applied the principles of natural justice and fair procedure governing communication of adverse ACR/PAR entries, including the Supreme Court’s principle in Dev Dutt v. Union of India that an adverse or performance-related entry capable of affecting an employee’s service prospects should be communicated to enable an effective representation.

The Court also considered the procedural framework relied upon by the appellant, including the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Contract Appointment) Rules, 2004, the State circular dated 24.12.2012 concerning recording and communication of ACR/PARs, and the order dated 03.06.2015 identifying competent officers for recording confidential reports.

However, contractual employment for a fixed term does not create an automatic right to continuation or extension after expiry of the contractual period; such continuation remains subject to the governing terms and conditions and the employer’s assessment.

In an intra-court appeal, interference is warranted only where the order under challenge suffers from a palpable infirmity or perversity.

The Court found that the learned Single Judge had correctly recognised that the adverse ACRs relied upon by the authorities were not communicated in accordance with the applicable principles of fairness and natural justice.

Consequently, those uncommunicated entries could not retain adverse significance against the appellant, particularly for any future appointment.

Nevertheless, the appellant’s contractual tenure had already expired, and the terms of contractual engagement did not confer a vested right to renewal or continuation.

The Single Judge therefore appropriately declined to order reinstatement or extension and instead protected the appellant by directing that the uncommunicated adverse entries should not affect his future candidature.

Since the order contained cogent and justifiable reasons and disclosed no palpable infirmity or perversity, the appellate court found no ground for interference.

However, because the fixed contractual period had expired, the appellant was not entitled to continuation or further extension as a matter of right.

Finding no palpable infirmity in the learned Single Judge’s order, the Court dismissed the writ appeal as meritless.