Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, MAUNA M. BHATT, JJ.
Babubhai Jethabhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Registrar General & Ors. – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 213 of 2023 In R/Special Civil Application No. 60 of 2019 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2022 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 213 of 2023
Decided on : 19-06-2024
Promotion - Employment - Confidential Reports - The court discussed the legal principles surrounding the communication of adverse remarks in Confidential Reports, emphasizing that non-communication violates principles of natural justice and affects promotion eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired Stenographer, was denied promotion to Principal Private Secretary based on uncommunicated adverse remarks in his Confidential Report. He challenged this decision after learning of the denial post-retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adverse remarks were not communicated to the appellant, violating his right to respond, and thus the denial of promotion was arbitrary and illegal.
Issues: Whether the denial of promotion based on uncommunicated adverse remarks in the Confidential Report was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-communication of adverse remarks in Confidential Reports is arbitrary and violates the principles of natural justice, impacting an employee's promotion chances.
Result: The court quashed the denial of promotion and directed the respondents to confer the promotion to the appellant ex post facto.
JUDGMENT :
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Hamesh Naidu waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent emanates from the judgment and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the action of the respondents denying him promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I.
BRIEF FACTS
3. The appellant joined the service as an English Stenographer Grade-II on 10.11.1978 and thereafter, was promoted to the post of English Stenographer Grade-I on 11.05.1998. He was serving in the establishment of Vadodara District Court and thereafter, he was serving at District Court, Chotta Udepur since it was established w.e.f. 24.12.2016. The issue of denial of promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I cropped up when the order dated 11.10.2017 was passed by Principal District Judge conferring promotion to the employees, as mentioned in such order in the cadre of Stenographer Grade-I (Class-I). In the said order, the name of the appellant figures at Sr. No.2 and in the column of remarks, it is recorded that “ Not granted as the Hon’ble High Court has considered him not fit to be appointed as ex-post-facto Principal Private Secretary (Class-I) in view of the letter No.B.1440/86 dated 07.02.2017”. The appellant meanwhile retired on 31.07.2013. The appellant became eligible for promotion on 12.05.2013. On coming to know about the said order denying him promotion ex post facto to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I the appellant made a representation on 08.11.2017 to the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat.
4. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the communication dated 07.02.2014 written by the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat to Principal District Judge, Vadodara was also supplied along with the order dated 11.10.2017, and on coming to know about such communication he specifically in his letter dated 08.11.2017 asserted that the adverse remarks mentioned in the communication dated 07.02.2014 were never communicated to him. It appears that the representation was ‘filed’ by the High Court on its administrative side and such decision was communicated to the appellant by the Registrar, District Court, Vadodara vide communication dated 23.12.2017.
5. It appears that the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking appropriate information regarding the Confidential Reports. He again approached the Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and it appears that by the communication dated 31.01.2018, the Registrar General filed the letter dated 04.01.2018 by observing that he was communicated the adverse remarks for the period from 18.05.2012 to 31.03.2013 and his Merit-cum-Efficiency Report for the last 5 years was found as average. This led to the filing of the captioned writ petition by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed his writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(PETITIONER)
6. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant for the first time came to know about his rejection for the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I only when the Office Order No. 210 of 2017 was passed on 11.10.2017 and the reason assigned in the communication dated 07.02.2014 for denying him promotion was also communicated along with such order, wherein it is referred that his case for the promotion to the post of Principal Private Secretary, Class-I cannot be considered in view of the adverse remarks passed in Confidential Report for the period from 18.05.2012 to 31.03.2013 and his last 5 years report for Merit-cum-Efficiency is average. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas has submitted that the appellant could not have been denied pr
Non-communication of adverse entries in Confidential Reports violates natural justice and affects promotion eligibility.
Non-communication of performance remarks in ACRs violates natural justice and can adversely affect promotion eligibility, necessitating expungement of such remarks.
Non-communication of adverse performance assessment entries denies fundamental right to a fair opportunity in promotion, violating principles of natural justice.
The importance of communicating adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the employee and the impact of such entries on promotion.
Promotions must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the communication of adverse remarks, and seniority should be respected unless merit and ability are clearly superior.
Point of Law : Communication of entries in the ACRs and giving opportunity to represent against them is particularly important in higher posts which are in a pyramidical structure where often the pri....
Uncommunicated adverse remarks in an ACR cannot be relied upon for promotion decisions, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
