Adverse remarks in performance appraisals must be based on objective, recorded evidence. Arbitrary, unsubstantiated, or uncommunicated entries that contradict positive reporting officer assessments are legally unsustainable and cannot be used to deny promotional opportunities.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

Heard Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 6

2.The petitioner has filed the present writ petition invoking the jurisdiction vested in this Court under provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 15th of November 2022, by which the respondents have resolved to retain an earlier entry of adverse remark in the annual confidential report of the petitioner for the period 2018 to 2019.

3.The petitioner had joined the services of the Assam Khadi and Village Industries Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for the sake of brevity) on 25th of November 1983 as a Lower Division Assistant (LDA). By an order of 24th of December 1983, the service of the petitioner was regularised against the post of a District Grade Lower Division Assistant. By another office order dated 17th of November 1987 issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Board, the petitioner, along with other candidates, was appointed as Lower Division Assistant cum Typist. By another order dated 9/10/2013, the petitioner was transferred from the headquarters and posted to Dibrugarh to take over charge as a District Officer(in charge) at the Dibrugarh office. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with other incumbents, was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant in the Headquarters by an order dated 4th March 2014.

4.A gradation list was prepared by the Establishment Branch of the respondent Board on 25.5.2018, where the petitioner was shown to be senior to the private respondents. Despite such seniority, by an order dated 12th of August 2020, the private respondents herein were promoted to the post of Superintendent by superseding the petitioner. Upon applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act,2005, being filed on behalf of the petitioner by his daughter, it was revealed that the petitioner’s Annual Confidential reports were found to be “favourable” in the statement showing the list of employees holding feeder posts who were recommended for consideration for promotion to the post of Superintendent. However, no reasons were disclosed as to why the petitioner had been denied his promotion and why he had been superseded by the private respondents.

5.The petitioner had thereafter preferred WP(C) no 4067/2020, praying for quashing of the order dated 12.8.2020, insofar as it granted promotion to his junior colleagues by superseding him, and for further directions to the respondent Board to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent in accordance with his seniority. The Board contested this writ petition by filing an affidavit wherein it was asserted that though at the time of preparation of the select list for promotion to the post of UDA, it was mentioned that the ACR of the petitioner was favourable for the reason that out of the three ACRs under consideration, namely the ACR of 2016- 17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, the first two ACRs were favourable, the Departmental Promotional Committee had taken into account the ACR for 2018-2019 also into account, which ACR contained adverse remarks against the petitioner. Responding to the said stand, the petitioner brought on record, by way of a rejoinder affidavit, the fact that he had never been informed about any adverse remarks in his ACR during his entire career and further, that in any view of the matter, uncom