Point of Law: Non-communication of entries in Annual Confidential Report to a public servant has civil consequences affecting his chances of promotion and getting other benefits. Non-communication of adverse ACRs would be violative of Article 14 of Constitution.

ORDER :

For the reasons that petitioner’s Annual Performance Appraisal Reports of five years under consideration did not meet the required benchmark of ‘Very Good’ prescribed in the office memorandum dated 21.6.2016, petitioner was denied promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnic). He was superseded by his juniors. He has instituted present petition claiming promotion to this post from due date.

2. Facts

2(i) The petitioner is presently serving as Head of Department (Applied Sciences and Humanities) in the Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. He was initially appointed as Lecturer (Mathematics) on regular basis on 6.12.1989 and promoted to the post of Senior Lecturer on 14.3.1997. The petitioner was further promoted as Head of Department (HOD) on 13.2.2009. Next promotion available to the petitioner was to the post of Principal in the pay scale of Rs. 37,400-67,000 + 8700 Grade Pay.

2(ii) Four posts of Principal (Polytechnic) had fallen vacant due to superannuation of the incumbents. The respondents-state initiated the process for filling-up these vacant posts of Principals (Polytechnic). In accordance with the Recruitment and Promotions Rules of the post of Principal (Polytechnic), the same was to be filled up 100% by promotion from amongst the Heads of department and Deputy Directors, Technical Education, Vocational and Industrial Training possessing five years regular service or regular combined with continuous adhoc service rendered up to 31.03.1991, if any, in the grade.

2(iii) A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 27.4.2021. Name of the petitioner also fell in the consideration zone in terms of R&P Rules. The DPC considered cases of 13 officers for promotion to the posts of Principal. On the basis of record and overall assessment of all the officers and their grading in the ACRs, the DPC recommended the names of following HODs for promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnic) on regular basis:-

(i) Shri Acchar Singh;

(ii) Shri Satish Dhingra; and

(iii) Smt. Manju Sharma (respondent No. 3 herein).

The above three persons were promoted as Principal, Polytechnic, Class-I (Gazetted) vide notification dated 28.4.2021 (Annexure P-1).

2(iv) Shri Satish Dhingra and Smt. Manju Sharma promoted to the post of Principal were juniors to the petitioner. Since the name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of those promoted to the post of Principal, the petitioner applied for documents under the Right to Information Act to search for reasons for his supersession.

2(v) The documents obtained by the petitioner and appended alongwith this writ petition revealed that petitioner’s name though figured at Serial No. 4 in the list of those considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Principal (Polytechnic), however, on considering Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner for the last five years i.e. 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, the DPC held him unfit for promotion on the ground that he did not possess the required benchmark of ‘Very Good’ in his ACRs.

The petitioner who is set to superannuate on 30.6.2022, filed this writ petition for the following substantive relief:-

“i. That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and Annexure P-1, notification dated 28th April, 2021 may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent, whereby persons junior to the petitioner has been promoted by further directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Principal (Polytechnic), Class-I (Gazetted) with effect from 28th April, 2021, with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc., in the interest of law and justice.”

3. Contentions

I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2 and considered the material available on record.

3(i) On behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has not been disputed that the petitioner was due for promotion to the post