The main legal point established is that adverse entries in the ACRs should be communicated within a reasonable period to afford the opportunity for representation, and such entries should not be taken into consideration for promotion if not communicated within a reasonable period.

Manojit Bhuyan, J.

1. The claim for promotion to the next higher rank of Chief Engineer by interfering with the gradings in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the relevant periods was the subject matter in the related writ petition filed by the respondent herein Sri Sheo Balak Singh. At the relevant point of time, he was serving as the Superintending Engineer in the Border Roads Organization (BRO). For the purpose of promotion to the rank of Chief Engineer, the bench mark in the gradings recorded in the ACRs was required to be “Very Good”. The periods under consideration and the gradings recorded by the Initiating Officer/Reviewing Officer/Accepting Officer in the relevant ACRs are as follows:

2. For the gradings recorded in the ACRs in (a) and (f) above, the same were communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 16.11.2011 and representations thereof was made on 28.11.2011. In respect of the gradings in the ACRs at (b), (c), (d) and (e) above, the same were communicated vide letter dated 16.08.2010 and representation thereof was made on 31.08.2010. Vide Office Memorandum dated 27.09.2010 the respondent was informed that his representation against the gradings in the ACRs for the periods at (b), (c), (d) and (e) had been considered and nothing exemplary was found during the said periods and accordingly the representations stands rejected. By subsequent Order dated 13.06.2012, the representations made by the respondents against the gradings in his ACR for the periods at (a) and (f) above also stood rejected, although for the subsequent period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009, the grading of the respondent was upgraded from “Average” to “Very Good” by expunging the adverse remark recorded in the ACR for the said period. Aggrieved, the respondent instituted the related WP(C) 2218/2013.

3. On consideration of the facts in issue and relying upon Supreme Court decisions on the law relating to the recording of ACRs, the writ petition was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh consideration of the case of the respondent for promotion to the rank of Chief Engineer by holding review DPC. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent’s case is required to be considered as of 2008-09 when his juniors were promoted to the rank of Chief Engineer. A direction was also made to the effect that gradings given in the above ACRs are not to be taken into account by the review DPC and the suitability of the respondent be independently assessed consistent with the observations made in the judgment and in accordance with law. The orders of rejection dated 27.09.2010 and 13.06.2012 were quashed and the gradings recorded in the ACRs, as mentioned above, were directed to be expunged. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and Others.

4. We have heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant SGI for the appellants and Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner. We have also perused the materials placed before us.

5. There is no dispute to the fact that copies of the ACRs for the periods aforementioned were communicated to the respondent in two bunches by letters dated 16.08.2010 and 16.11.2011 respectively. The pleaded stand of the appellants is that prior to the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 there was no requirement to communicate the below benchmark gradings in the ACRs to officers concerne