JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J

1. Leave granted.

2. The dispute in the present case arises from the appellant’s claim for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the services of the respondents. The year of promotion is 2014-2015.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that the entries in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report [“APAR”] for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation at the material time. The appellant had the following gradings in the APARs:

(i) 2010-2011 “C”

(ii) 2011-2012 “B”

(iii) 2012-2013 “A”

(iv) 2013-2014 “A”

4. Relying on the two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Dev Dutt v Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and the subsequent decision of the three-judge Bench in Sukhdev Singh v Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 the appellant contended that the failure to communicate the entries for 2010-11 and 2011-12 is contrary to the law laid down by this Court. Moreover, it has been submitted that on 14 May 2009 and 13 April 2010, the Union of India in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) had issued directions for implementation of the decision i