Uncommunicated Below-Benchmark Annual Confidential Reports Cannot Be Relied Upon to Deny Promotion

The applicant, a Material Assistant, was considered for promotion to Senior Material Assistant by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in October 2018. He was denied promotion because his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 2013–14 was graded below the required benchmark

The applicant contended that this adverse/below-benchmark entry was never communicated to him, depriving him of the opportunity to represent against it before the DPC convened

While the litigation was pending, the applicant was subsequently promoted to the post w.e.f. 01.01.2021, but he sought retrospective promotion from the date his juniors were promoted (20.01.2019) with all consequential benefits

1. Whether the non-communication of a below-benchmark ACR entry renders its consideration by a DPC for denying promotion illegal and arbitrary.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion and consequential benefits if the uncommunicated ACR is subsequently upgraded.

The court relied on the principles of natural justice and transparency in public administration, primarily citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, which held that all ACR entries must be communicated to a public servant to allow for a representation for upgradation

Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. UOI, which established that uncommunicated entries cannot be considered for promotion

Full Bench decision in Sukhdev Singh v. UOI, which declared that non-communication is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution

R.K. Jibanlata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, affirming that DPC proceedings relying on uncommunicated ACRs must be quashed

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed to provide specific details or evidence regarding the communication of the 2013–14 ACR to the applicant, leading to a legal presumption of non-communication

Applying the Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh precedents, the Tribunal reasoned that using an uncommunicated below-benchmark entry to deny promotion carries civil consequences and is inherently arbitrary

The court noted that even though the applicant was promoted in 2021, his right to be considered for promotion from 2019 (when his juniors were promoted) remained valid because the original DPC's reliance on the flawed ACR entry was legally unsustainable

The respondents were directed to: (i) serve the 2013–14 ACR entry to the applicant within two weeks; (ii) allow the applicant to submit a representation for upgradation; and (iii) decide on said representation within two weeks. It further ordered that if the ACR is upgraded and the applicant consequently finds a place in the original merit list, he must be granted notional promotion from the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential benefits