The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of reasonableness, transparency, and communication of ACR entries to assess the validity of adverse grading in the context of promotion decisions.

By means of this petition, the petitioner, working as the Private Secretary, Grade-II, has challenged the action of the respondents in promoting the respondents No.6 and 7, who were admittedly junior to the petitioner in the Grade of Private Secretary-III, to the Grade of Private Secretary-II, borne in the scale of pay of Rs. 13,57537,000, plus the Grade pay of Rs. 4,800, by the orders respectively under No.F.12(2)DJ/W/2008/4690701 dated 12.05.2008, Annexure-J to the writ petition and under No.F.12(2)DJ/W/2008/5917929, dated 30.05.2009, Annexure-L to the writ petition, as well as filed this petition for expunging the observation on assessing her, in the ACRs for the year 2007, as “not yet fit for promotion”, Annexure-G to the writ petition.

2. As the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Private Secretary-, Grade-II, during pendency of this writ petition, by the Order under No.F.12(2)DJ/W/2012/1223347, dated 30.08.2003, Annexure-O to the writ petition, in the scale of pay of Rs. 13,57537,000 with the Grade- pay of Rs. 5,600, the petitioner has claimed that the benefit of the said promotion be preponed from the date when the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were promoted to the said post of the Private Secretary-, Grade-II.

3. It is not in dispute in any manner that Shri Himangshu Chanda and Shri Siddhartha Chakraborty, the respondents No. 6 and 7, were junior to the petitioner in the Grade- of Private Secretary-III, but the Departmental Promotion Committee (the ‘DPC’, in short) recommended the respondents No. 6 and 7 with prior approval from the Gauhati High Court for their appointment on promotion to the post of Private Secretary, Grade-II in the scale of pay of Rs. 10,65032515,850 (prerevised), corresponding to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 13,57537,000 in the Grade pay of Rs. 4,800 (pay band 4) alongwith other admissible allowances. On 12.05.2008 the respondent No.6 was promoted and the respondent No.7 was promoted against the vacancy due to retirement of one Parimal Chakraborty, Private Secretary, Grade-II on superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2009. Accordingly, by virtue of the orders dated 12.05.2008 and

30.05.2009, Annexure-J and Annexure-L to the writ petition, the respondents No. 6 and 7 resumed their duty on the promotional post of Private Secretary, Grade-II.

4. It transpires from the record that, the petitioner was assessed as “not yet fit for promotion” by the District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, by way of review, for the year 2007 as would be reflected from the Memorandum No.F.4(64)DJ/S/200508/951, dated 29.01.2008, Annexure-G to the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that she had been Graded “not yet fit for promotion” in the year 2007. Immediately, she had been communicated of such grading, with the following observation, appended to the said memorandum dated 29.01.2001:

“If she has got any submission to make with regard to the above remarks, she may submit the same in writing to the Office of the undersigned within 7(seven) days from the date of receipt of this Memorandum.”

5. The petitioner, on 01.02.2008 made her representation asserting that, her 5(five) years ACRs would prove that she is fit for promotion. Even though she was suffering from ailments but, that did not affect her performance at any matter. She has also imputed the said assessment by stating that at no point of time, her deficiencies were pointed out for improvement. Thus, such assessment was not at all objective. By the Memorandum under No.F.4(64)DJ/S/200508/306, dated 14.02.2008, Annexure-I to the writ petition, the said representation of the petitioner was disposed with the following observations :

“1. That the reporting officer did not mention any date in the A C R on which Smt. Datta expressed her unwillingness to perform extra duty. Hence, the remarks passed in the A C R against col. No.2 is hereby expunged.

2. On the question of integrity remarks passed against sl no. 1 & 5 appear to be contradictory since integrity of emplo