Uncommunicated Adverse APAR Entries Must Be Ignored During Retrospective Consideration for Promotion

The Appellant, a Scale III officer at Respondent No. 1 company, was denied promotion to Scale IV during the 2014-15 exercise

Following a successful appeal to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal Nos. 5340-5341/2019), it was revealed that the Appellant was awarded a 'B' grade in his APAR for 2011-12, while receiving 'A' grades for 2012-13 and 2013-14

This 'B' grade, which directly affected his promotion eligibility, had remained uncommunicated to him until 2019

Despite a subsequent representation by the Appellant, the Respondents maintained the original promotion decision in an order dated 21.09.2020

The Appellant challenged this order via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present intra-court appeal

1. Whether an adverse, uncommunicated APAR grading can be legally relied upon to deny an employee promotion

2. Whether the competent authority is required to ignore uncommunicated APARs and conduct a fresh promotion exercise

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution as interpreted in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, which mandates that every entry in an ACR/APAR (whether fair, good, or average) must be communicated to a public servant to allow for representation

It strictly followed Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, affirming that non-communication of such entries is arbitrary and affects promotion chances

The court relied on Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, which established the specific doctrine that uncommunicated and adverse ACRs must be ignored by the competent authority in a fresh consideration for promotion

The court reasoned that the 'B' grade for 2011-12 was functionally adverse because it fell below the Appellant's subsequent 'A' grades and the required benchmark for promotion

Citing the Supreme Court’s prior observation in the Appellant's own case, the High Court noted that this lower grading "materially affected" his promotion prospects

Since the Respondents failed to communicate this entry prior to the 2014-15 promotion exercise, the court found the reliance on it to be a violation of the settled law in Sukhdev Singh

The court determined that the Single Judge erred in not applying the remedial procedure set out in Rukhsana Shaheen Khan, which requires the employer to bypass the tainted APAR entirely rather than simply reconsidering it years later after a forced disclosure

It quashed the Respondent’s order dated 21.09.2020 and directed Respondent No. 1 to reconsider the Appellant's promotion for the 2014-15 cycle, holding that the 2011-12 APAR must be excluded from consideration

If found eligible, the Appellant is to be granted promotion retrospectively from 29.05.2014 with all consequential benefits and arrears