1. Promotion dispute for Assistant Registrar post — Application of service rules — Challenge to Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings based on Annual Confidential Reports. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 153
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
R.K. Jibanlata Devi – Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1209 of 2021
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Important Points
Un-communicated adverse ACRs may not be relied upon for consideration of promotions.
Subject
Civil Law - Employment Law
Act Referred
Headnote
- Promotion - Rules 1967, Rules 2020, ACRs - The court discussed the application of Rules 1967 and Rules 2020 in the promotion process to the post of Assistant Registrar. It also considered the significance of ACRs (Annual Confidential Reports) and their communication to the concerned employee before being considered for promotion.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) decision denying her promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and requested a fresh DPC.Finding of the Court:
The court found that un-communicated ACRs should not be relied upon for consideration of promotion. It directed a fresh consideration of the petitioner's case, ignoring un-communicated ACRs for certain years. ISSUES Dispute over promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar based on different sets of rules and consideration of ACRs.Ratio Decidendi:
Un-communicated ACRs should not be relied upon for promotion considerations. Fresh consideration is required, excluding un-communicated ACRs. FINAL DECISION The DPC proceedings denying the petitioner's promotion were quashed, and her case was directed to be reconsidered afresh, ignoring un-communicated ACRs for certain years within six weeks.Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv. Mr. David Ahongsangbam, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over applicable service rules for vacancies — Validity of relying on uncommunicated or late-communicated Annual Confidential Reports for promotion. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Rules prevailing at the time of DPC meeting apply — Uncommunicated or late-communicated ACRs cannot be used to deny promotion. (Para 6 )
4. DPC proceedings quashed — Direction to reconsider promotion ignoring uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports with consequential benefits. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
5. Which service rules apply when vacancies arise before new rules are framed but are filled after the new rules come into force?
The rules prevailing at the time the Departmental Promotion Committee meets are applicable. There is no universal rule that vacancies must necessarily be filled based on the rules that existed on the date the vacancies arose. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. By way of this petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate relief, direction or order to set aside the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) dated 9.4.2021 denying her promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to hold a fresh DPC.
2. The facts leading to the present writ petition in a nutshell are as under:
The petitioner initially joined her services as Lower Division Assistant in the establishment of the Gauhati High Court in the year 1991. Thereafter, she was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant in the year 1993. That thereafter she was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the Gauhati High Court on 5.1.2012. That in the year 2013, the High Court of Manipur came to be established as it was separated from the Gauhati High Court. At the relevant time and till the High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 2020’) came to be framed, the Manipur High Court was enforcing the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1967’).
2.1 The next promotion from the post of Superintendent was to the post of Assistant Registrar. One post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant on 1.2.2019. As on August, 2020, four posts of Assistant Registrars were available. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, as after the establishment of separate High Court of Manipur in the year 2013, the rules for appointment and other service conditions of the staff were governed by the Rules, 1967 and the post of Assistant Registrar was to be filled by way of seniority-cum-merit and the petitioner being senior-most amongst the Superintendents, she was entitled to the promotion to the said post of Assistant Registrar. Thereafter, the High Court of Manipur framed its own Rules, 2020. However, the DPC was held on 9.4.2021 for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar (six posts) including one vacant post of the year 2019 and the remaining posts which occurred in the month of August, 2020. As per the Rules, 2020, last four years ACRs were required to be considered and accordingly DPC considered the ACRs from 2016 onwards till the date of DPC held on 9.4.2021.
2.2 The DPC did not recommend the name of the petitioner and promoted other persons-private respondents herein and hence aggrieved by the denial of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
At this stage, it is required to be noted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and on the rule of necessity as there were three Hon’ble Judges in the Manipur High Court including the Chief Justice, out of which two were the members of the DPC and the ACRs were considered by the Chief Justice and therefore the present writ petition before this Court.
3. Shri R. Bala Subramanian, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submissions:
(i) That as the post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant on 1.2.2019 and in the month of August, 2020 (4 posts) and the Rules, 2020 came into force in the month of December, 2020 and prior thereto the Rules, 1967 were applicable, the Rules 1967 prevalent at the relevant time when the posts remained vacant were required to be applied.
(ii) That under the Rules, 1967 which were prevalent at the relevant time, the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit and the petitioner being the seniormost in the cadre of Superintendent ought to have been promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar.
(iii) That as per the Rules, 1967, last five years ACRs were required to be considered for promotion to the post of A
