Non-communication of ACR entries, whether adverse or not, is essential for fair promotion processes and impacts eligibility for advancement in service.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the non-consideration for promotion while promoting his junior to the rank of Warrant Officer/General Duty (GD).

3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 17.02.1991 as Rifleman/GD. After completion of his military basic training, the petitioner was posted to various places of posting.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is qualified to be considered for next higher rank/post of Warrant Officer (GD). Although, the petitioner having been qualified and eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 2019, the respondent authorities arbitrarily had not considered the petitioner for promotion. However, his junior was considered and promoted to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) by superseding the petitioner vide order dated 26.05.2019. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Havildar in 2008 and the relevant requirements under the instructions is that for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer, one must have qualifying six years in the grade of Havilar.

5. Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2019 when his junior was promoted as the petitioner having been promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2008. It is also not disputed that the respondent authorities have promoted the junior while ignoring the case of the petitioner. However, on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have now promoted the petitioner to the post of Warrant Officer w.e.f. 22.02.2022. Since the petitioner has been superseded by his junior, his promotion ought to have been from the date when the junior of the petitioner was promoted. Therefore, she submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) w.e.f. 01.04.2019 i.e. from the date when his junior was promoted with all consequential service benefits.

6. Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC submits that the petitioner had to be superseded for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2019 due to non-fulfillment of the eligible criteria as reflected in the ACR in terms of the instructions regulating the promotion. The petitioner was not considered for promotion while considering the junior of the petitioner on the basis of the non-fulfillment of criteria. He submits that the ACR did not contain adverse remarks therefore, same was not required to be communicated as it provides that only adverse remarks, weak points and below average, figure assessment in quality will be communicated in writing in the form of a letter. Therefore, he submits that since petitioner has been now promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer (GD) from the year 2022, he is not entitled to be promoted from the year 2019 as the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not eligible in terms of the relevant instructions. However, he fairly submits that the entries in ACR ought to have been communicated in view of the settled position of law.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2008, who was eligible in the year 2019 when the DPC was held. It is also admitted position that one junior Havildar has been promoted by superseding the petitioner in the year 2019. Now the pet