Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 1436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.Krishna Mohan, J.
Dara Srinivasa Rao - Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 171 of 2022
Decided On : 27-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
C.Srinivasa Baba, Advocate, G.R. Sudhakar, Advocate
Employees must be given an opportunity to make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs and consideration of promotion, as established in relevant legal precedents.
Headnote:
Promotion - Self-Appraisal Reports - Revised Promotion Policy - Opportunity for Representation - Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2019(4) SCC 276 - DEV DUTT V. UNION OF INDIA, (2008) 8 SCC 725 - SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, (2013) 9 SCC 566
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the denial of promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager based on poor self-appraisal reports for the preceding three years. They argued that their performance had been consistently good until the ACRs were shown as poor due to reasons related to the Corporation's affairs. They contended that they were deprived of promotion despite satisfying the eligibility criteria and were not given an opportunity to represent when there was a conflict of opinion between the reporting and reviewing officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent-Corporation to provide the petitioners with an opportunity to make a representation for promotion as Assistant General Managers, in line with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Corporation was instructed to consider their cases expeditiously, taking into account the settled legal position.
Issues: Denial of promotion based on poor self-appraisal reports, lack of opportunity for representation when there is a conflict of opinion between reporting and reviewing officers, and the applicability of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2019(4) SCC 276.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing employees with an opportunity to make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs and consideration of promotion, as established in the decisions of DEV DUTT V. UNION OF INDIA, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and SUKHDEV SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA, (2013) 9 SCC 566. It held that the petitioners should be given a chance to approach the respondent-Corporation for promotion, in line with the settled legal position.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of, and the respondent-Corporation was directed to consider the petitioners' cases for promotion as Assistant General Managers, providing them with an opportunity to make a representation within three weeks and deciding expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks thereafter. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Assistant General Manager on the ground of self-appraisal reports shown as poor for the preceding three years.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners initially worked as Assistant Managers in the respondent-Corporation and got promotion as Deputy Managers and they were promoted subsequently as Senior Managers. Through out their career their performance was noted as good and got promotions from time to time till the level of the post of Senior Manager. Thereafter for the reasons best known with respect to the affairs of the Corporation, their ACRs were shown as poor and consequently they are being denied further promotion as Assistant General Managers from time to time whereas their juniors were promoted to the said post.
4. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the tables under the heads of consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Senior Manager and consolidated self-appraisal reports of Sri N.Bala Maddilety, Senior Manager, which are as follows: Consolidated Self-Appraisal reports pertaining to Sri D.Srinivasa Rao, Senior Manager:
5. The above said tables indicate that from 2014-15 to 2019-20 so far as the Assessment of Reporting Officer is concerned, the remarks were very good for both the petitioners. So far as the assessment of the Reviewing Officer is concerned, for the first three years of financial years 2014-15 to 2016-17 the remarks were very good, excellent, and very good respectively. Thereafter from 2017-18 to 2019-2020 it is shown as unsatisfactory in the case of both the petitioners. The said remarks of the Reviewing Officer for those three financial years were on the same day after he left the office on 19/3/2020 as Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. The counsel for the petitioners refers to the Guidelines of the Revised Promotion Policy wherein the eligibility and criteria for the post of Assistant General Manager is shown in para 5(e) which is as follows:
6. Though the petitioners satisfy the said criteria for promotion, they have been deprived of the same. After filing the writ petition the petitioners secured these "Self-Appraisal Reports" and as such they are filed as additional material papers. But there was no opportunity given to the petitioners while reviewing officer taking a decision in conflict with the decision of the reporting officer.
7. The counsel for the petitioners submits that no opportunity was given for the petitioners when there is a conflict of opinion of the reviewing officer with that of the reporting officer and as such the petitioners do not accept the poor appraisal recorded by the Reviewing Officer in the said ACRs as they are not tenable.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners also refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Anil Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2019(4) SCC 276 wherein it was held that the opportunity should be given to the employees to make a representation for upgradation of the ACRs and consideration of promotion and it is binding on all the Corporations and the Government employees. Hence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India interfered with the decision of the CAT and the High Court in the said case and directed the authorities therein to grant an opportunity to submit a representation of the appellant therein in respect of ACRs for their financial upgradation and consideration of promotions subsequently. Relevant paragraphs are extracted as follows:
"10. In DEV DUTT V. UNION OF INDIA, (2008) 8 SCC 725 a two Judge Bench of this court held that fairness in public administration and transparency require that all entries in the Annual Confidential Reports of a public servant must be communicated within a re
