Promotion in the Indian Revenue Services requires meeting established benchmarks in ACR ratings; mere eligibility does not guarantee promotion. Non-communication of ACR entries violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment :

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The Petitioner-Union of India has preferred this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India , claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the record if the case may kindly be called for and the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2010 passed in the O.A. No. 5/2010, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-original applicant (henceforth also referred to as ‘original applicant’) was inducted in the services of the Union as an officer of the Indian Revenue Services (Batch 1976), and was promoted on the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur; the present case pertains to the original applicant’s claim for his due promotion on the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, “CCIT”) against the vacancy arising in year 2008-09.

2.1. The respondent-applicant was originally considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC”) held on 18.11.2008 for the promotion to the post in question i.e. CCIT, however the DPC did not recommend his case on the ground that in one of the five years’ Annual Confidential Report (“ACR”) i.e. for the year 2006-07, he was rated “Good”, which is less than the benchmark for such promotion. The respondent-applicant filed an original application, which was registered as Original Application No. 252/2008, before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (in short, ‘Tribunal’) challenging the decision of the petitioner authorities, which was admitted and an interim order was by the Tribunal to the effect that one post of CCIT be kept vacant and any promotion that might be ordered will remain subject to outcome of the original application.

2.2. Thereafter, the said original application was transferred to the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and came to be registered as (Original Application No.1540/2009) and the learned Principal Bench allowed the original application while directing the petitioners herein to communicate the ACR of the year 2006-07 to enable the respondent- applicant to make a representation against it. It was also directed that after considering the representation, if the respondent-applicant is able to secure an ACR which commensurate with the required benchmark, the petitioners would convene a Review DPC for the said purpose.

2.3. The respondent-applicant thereupon submitted a representation which was considered by the competent authority and an order dated 24.09.2009 was issued by the petitioner No.1 stating that the performance of the respondent-applicant during the year 2006-07 cannot be construed as being below par for being eligible for promotion as CCIT.

2.4. Subsequently, the case of the respondent-applicant was considered by the Review DPC held on 23.10.2009; however, the DPC again declared him as “Unfit” on the ground that the competent authority while considering the representation of the respondent- applicant has not placed any vital justification to support its decision as to conclude that the ACR of the applicant for year 2006-07 met the required benchmark of “Very Good” for the purpose of promotion in question.

2.5. Aggrieved by the said finding of the Review DPC, the respondent-applicant filed an original application bearing No.5/2010 before the learned Tribunal contesting the same, which was disposed of, vide the impugned order dated 30.03.2010, with a direction to the pet