Denial of promotion based on non-communicated below benchmark ACRs violates Article 14, and such non-communication is arbitrary and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court challenging the order impugned dated 14.02.2019 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Tribunal’ for short) in O.A. No.826/2012 filed by the petitioner wherein he challenged the action of the respondent in rejecting his representation submitted in respect of downgrading his ACRs in the last five years, which were not communicated to him and on account of which he was denied promotion from the post of Vice-Principal to Principal in the re- spondent-organisation.

2. The brief facts as submitted by learned counsel for the peti- tioner are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-or- ganisation i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter re- ferred to as ‘KVS’ for short) on the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) in Jammu and Kashmir on 31.07.1978. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 30.09.1984 and thereafter promoted to the post of Vice-Principal on 16.09.2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agar- wal submitted that the next promotion was for the post of Princi- pal for which petitioner was eligible and entitled, however, he was not considered for promotion in the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the ground that he did not meet the prescribed benchmark for consideration for the post of Principal under the Rules. On being denied the consideration for the year from 2009- 10 to 2011-12, the petitioner raised grievances before the respon- dent and he was informed that he did not have the prescribed benchmark (which is ‘good’) for being eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. The petitioner was informed by memorandum dated 28.11.2011 against which the petitioner represented to the Joint Commissioner (Admn.) of the respondent-organisation which then advised the petitioner to apply for review of his ACRs to Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office Jaipur which is the compe- tent authority in terms of Article 91 of the Education Code of KVS.

4. In terms of memorandum dated 22.08.2012 as issued by Joint Commissioner (Admn.), the petitioner submitted a represen- tation through proper channel to the Commissioner, KVS, New Delhi for review of his ACRs. The respondent decided the repre- sentation of the petitioner regarding correction/review of the ACRs by memorandum dated 01.11.2012 whereby the respondent re- fused to review the ACR without any justified reason. The reason as recorded while denying the review of the ACR is reproduced as under:-

5. On rejection of the representation the petitioner filed the Original Application bearing No.826/2012 before the learned Tri- bunal wherein he challenged the rejection of his representation by memorandum dated 01.11.2012.

6. Learned counsel submits that it was argued before the learned Tribunal that for the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 he was graded as ‘average’ and these ACRs were not communicated to him despite the fact that his ACRs/APARs for the period 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were ‘good’ which shows that in the last five years his ACRs/APARs from 2001-02 to 2005-06 were ‘good’, however, on downgradi