IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
Ismailbhai A. Mansuri - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 16366 of 2012
Decided On : 29-07-2016
Promotion - Accounts Officer - Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2005 - [Article 226] - [Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2005] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 2005, and the amendment raising the benchmark for promotion from 'Good' to 'Very Good'. The court also referenced key legal provisions from the judgments of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India, Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India, Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India, and Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal Vs. Chairman, U.P.S.C. & Ors., emphasizing the need for communication of ACR entries and the adverse effect of uncommunicated 'Good' remarks on promotion eligibility. The interpretation of these legal provisions influenced the court's decision to grant the petitioner's promotion without considering uncommunicated adverse entries in his ACRs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts) with effect from 26.05.2009, claiming that his juniors were promoted on that date. The petitioner's ACRs contained uncommunicated 'Good' remarks, which were considered adversely by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), leading to his non-consideration for promotion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the uncommunicated 'Good' remarks in the petitioner's ACRs had an adverse effect on his promotion eligibility, as per the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. The court held that the failure to communicate the 'Very Good' remarks to the petitioner deprived him of consideration for promotion, and the enhanced benchmark of 'Very Good' resulted in an adverse connotation being given to the uncommunicated 'Good' remarks.
Issues: The issues revolved around the non-communication of 'Good' and 'Very Good' remarks in the petitioner's ACRs, and the impact of the amended Rules raising the benchmark for promotion from 'Good' to 'Very Good' on the petitioner's promotion eligibility.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the need for communication of ACR entries and the adverse effect of uncommunicated 'Good' remarks on promotion eligibility. The court held that the failure to communicate the 'Very Good' remarks to the petitioner deprived him of consideration for promotion, and the enhanced benchmark of 'Very Good' resulted in an adverse connotation being given to the uncommunicated 'Good' remarks.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts) with effect from 26.05.2009, without considering the uncommunicated adverse entries in his ACRs, and granted all consequential and incidental benefits.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred, inter-alia, with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions to the respondents to confer the benefits of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts) upon the petitioner with effect from 26.05.2009 with consequential and incidental benefits and/or direct the respondents to consider 26.05.2009 as the date of promotion of the petitioner to the said post. A consequential prayer has also been made to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Accounts).
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are the petitioner was appointed as Accounts Officer, Class-II, by way of regular selection vide approval of the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) on 07.10.1997. The petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director (Accounts) (Class-I) on 10.07.2012. The claim of the petitioner, however, is that he should have been promoted to the said post with all consequential benefits with effect from 26.05.2009, which is the date on which the juniors of the petitioner were so promoted. According to the petitioner, his entire service career has remained blotless and no adverse remarks have ever been communicated officially to him. The petitioner made a representation dated 07.08.2012, which has remained unanswered till date. He has been assessed as 'Good' in the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. However, admittedly, these remarks have never been communicated to the petitioner. In the assessment of the past eight years done by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the petitioner has come to know that on 29.01.2009 when the DPC met to consider the ACRs of the petitioner from the year 200-01 to 2007-08 that the assessments of 'Good' that were made were considered adversely but never communicated to him. The position of the ACRs of the petitioner for the eight years in question is as below:
Position of Confidential Reports for eight years
Year
Remarks
2000-01
Good
2001-02
Good
2002-03
Good
2003-04
Good
2004-05
Good
2005-06
Very Good
2006-07
Very Good
2007-08
Very Good
2.1 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not promoting him from the date on which his juniors were promoted with effect from 26.05.2009, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Mr. Hardik C. Rawal, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that in all the ACRs of the petitioner for the past eight years, no adverse remarks have been communicated to him. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met to consider the names of the eligible candidates from amongst the Accounts Officer, Class-I to the post of Deputy Director (Accounts). The name of the petitioner was not considered in the said DPC as the remarks 'Good' for the years 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 were given an adverse connotation by the respondents. The said remarks have never been communicated to the petitioner. On the contrary, respondent No. 1 has stated that the remarks 'Good' cannot be considered as adverse. However, had that been the position, there would not have been any impediment in the way of the petitioner in being promoted from the date on which his juniors were promoted. It is submitted that it is a settled position of law that if the remarks 'Good' are adversely construed, they have to be communicated to the petitioner and, therefore, they ought not to be considered. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725
(2) Abhijit Gosh Dastidar Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 146
(3) Sukhdev Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in (
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.