SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 147

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
No. Jc-192699W Subedar/Gd Tilak Dhari, S/o- Late Kuber – Petitioner 
Versus
Union Of India Represented By The Secretary The Government Of India
Ministry Of Home Affirs New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents 
WP(C)/1889 of 2025
Decided On : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr V Kumar
For the Respondent: Dy.S.G.I.

Promotion decisions cannot be based on uncommunicated entries in Annual Confidential Reports, which contravenes principles of natural justice and the right to fair procedure under Article 14.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Promotion to higher rank - Denial of promotion on the basis of uncommunicated adverse entries in Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) found unlawful - The petitioner, having fulfilled the qualitative requirements and being senior, was wrongfully deprived of promotion. (Paras 6, 15, 17)

(B) ACR Testing - Communication of ACRs/APARs - The law firmly establishes that all ACRs/APARs must be communicated to the employee; failure to do so renders any adverse entry inoperative and cannot be considered for promotion decisions. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, enlisted since 1986, was bypassed for promotion despite being eligible; non-communication of adverse ACR entries is central to the issue. He sought to challenge this issue through legal notice and subsequently filed a writ petition.

Findings of Court:
The court found that not communicating the grading constituted an arbitrary action and mandated restoration of the petitioner’s eligibility for promotion.

Issues: The primary legal queries included the validity of using uncommunicated ACR entries and the process by which promotion decisions were made in relation to seniority and ACR criteria.

Ratio Decidendi: The decision underlines that all grading in ACR/APAR must be communicated to the concerned employee, and promoting on uncommunicated assessments violates principles of fair play and equality mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Result: Writ petition allowed; petitioner to be granted promotion to Subedar Major/GD.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's promotion eligibility based on seniority (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. uncommunicated acrs cannot be used for promotion (Para 5 , 6)
3. legal precedents on uncommunicated acrs (Para 7 , 8)
4. respondents' adherence to acr policies (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. supreme court's mandate on acr communication (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
6. court's directive to grant promotion (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Subedar Major/GD (General Duty) as per his seniority, i.e. with effect from the date when his junior was promoted, by expunging/ignoring any uncommunicated adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and to grant all consequential service benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 19.04.1986 as a Rifleman/GD and was posted to the 19th Assam Rifles in the year 1987. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar/GD in the year 1998 and subsequently to the rank of Naib Subedar/GD in the year 2005 and thereafter to the rank of Subedar/GD in the year 2010.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that after promotion to Subedar/GD, his next higher promotional rank is Subedar Major/GD. The petitioner has completed the qualitative requirements for promotion and being the senior-most Subedar in his category, was due to be considered for promotion in the year 2022. Despite his eligibility, the petitioner has been deprived of promotion, while the said benefit has been granted to his juniors. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for the grant of promotion as per his seniority or to communicate the reason for non-consideration of his promotion. Despite requesting the respondents to communicate the reason, his grievance was ignored. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 23.12.2024 seeking promotion as per his seniority.

5. It is contended that the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 17.02.2025, informed the petitioner that his case had been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in the year 2022, wherein, his last five Annual Confidential Reports/Annual Performance Assessment Reports (ACRs/APARs) for 2017-2021 were examined and he was graded “High Average” (05 points) in 2017, 2018 & 2019 and “Average” (04 points), below the prescribed benchmark of “Above Average” (07 points) i.e. “Very Good” required for promotion. Consequently, the name of the petitioner was not recommended for promotion to Subedar Major/GD, being ineligible under the ACR criteria.

6. It is contended that that no adverse entry in his ACRs/APARs had ever been communicated to the petitioner and he was unaware of the same until receipt of the reply dated 17.02.2025. It is the settled position of law that every ACR/APAR must be communicated to the concerned employee and consideration of any uncommunicated entry is impermissible. Since the petitioner’s ACR for the years 2017, 2018 & 2019 was not communicated to him, it could not lawfully be taken into account for denying his promotion to the rank of Subedar Major/GD with effect from the year 2022.

7. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 39 years of unblemished service to the organization and is now at the fag end of his service career. Except for the grading in the ACR, which was below the prescribed benchmark required for promotion, the petitioner fulfills all the promotional qualitative requirements. The entries/remarks in the petitioner’s ACR have never been communicated to him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to raise his grievance by way of a representation in terms of the relevant provisions, whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top