MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
No. 3800054 Nb Sub Karan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others - Respondent
WP(C) No. 104/2013
Decided On : 10-04-2014
Promotion - Non-recommendation - ACR Criteria - Record Office Instruction No. 4/2002 - Para 6 of Record Office Instruction No. 4/97
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the non-recommendation for promotion to the post of Subedar (GD) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the vacancy year 2012, citing fulfillment of all eligible criteria, incorrect recording in the ACR, and lack of communication of adverse entry in the ACR for the year 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had fulfilled all essential criteria for promotion and that the adverse entry in the ACR for the year 2010 was not communicated to the petitioner, leading to a direction for review DPC and strict adherence to the procedures outlined in the Record Office Instruction No. 4/97.
Issues: Non-recommendation for promotion, incorrect recording in the ACR, lack of communication of adverse entry, and compliance with ACR criteria and Record Office Instructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right of the employee if all essential criteria are met, and that any adverse entry in the ACR should be communicated to the employee to enable the filing of a representation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Subedar for the vacancy year 2012 by holding a review DPC, strictly following the procedures outlined in the Record Office Instruction No. 4/97, and communicating the entry in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2010 to enable him to file a representation.
Judgment
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.In this writ petition, non-recommendation of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Subedar (GD) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') held in the year 2012 for the vacancy year 2012 is challenged on the inter-alia grounds:- (i) the petitioner had fulfilled all eligible criteria for promotion to the post of Subedar (GD) as on 01.01.2012 and also on the date of holding the DPC for the vacancy year 2012 (ii) the concerned authority had wrongly made the recording or grading i.e. "Not Recommended for promotion" in the ACR for the year 2010 inasmuch as, that recording is in violation of the Record Office Instruction of the Directorate General, Assam Rifles i.e. (No. 4/97) and (iii) adverse entry in the ACR "Not Recommended for promotion" for the year 2010 was also not communicated to the writ petitioner and prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider his case for promotion to the post of Subedar (GD) for the vacancy year 2012 by holding review DPC basing on the relevant requirement prevailing at that time w.e.f. his juniors i.e. respondents No. 6-13 were promoted to the posts of Subedar (GD). Heard Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Khan, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No. 1-5. None appears for the respondents No. 6-13 without showing any reasons inspite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition to them.
2. The only facts sufficient for deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition are briefly noted. The petitioner initially joined in the Assam Rifles on 11.11.1978 as Recruit (GD). Taking into consideration of his sincere service as Recruit (GD), the petitioner was promoted to the rank of L/Nk w.e.f. 05.09.1992 and to the rank of Nk w.e.f. 01.04.1997. The petitioner was further promoted to the rank of Havildar (GD) w.e.f. 01.10.1998. In consideration of his dedicated service as a Havildar (GD), the petitioner was again promoted to the rank of Nb. Subedar w.e.f. 01.09.2005. It is also stated that the petitioner was one of the first persons to hold the post of Battalion Havildar Major (BHM) for continuously 3(three) years from 2002-05 after raising of the Battalion in the year 2002. The next higher promotion is to the post of Subedar. Under the Assam Rifles, Record Office Instruction No. 4/2002, promotion policy of the Assam Rifles personnel, ACR criteria for promotion to the post of Subedar are as follows:-
Restricted
Appendix 'B' to ROI 04/2002
Educational and ACR Criteria for Various Promotion GD Personnel
3. Under the said criteria for promotion to the post of Subedar, only Nb. Subedar having three years service as Nb. Subedar/GD (a) Three (3) out of last five (5) reports should not be below "High Average"; (b) remaining two (2) reports should not be below "Average"; (c) out of last five (5) reports, two reports must be from Bn/ARTC & S/NSG (not applicable to GD pers forming part of any AR team of any discipline att to AR/Army fmn) and; (d) should have been recommended for promotion in the last three (3) reports. It is the case of the petitioner that he had fulfilled all eligible criteria mentioned above for promotion to the higher post of Subedar (GD). Inspite of having all essential criteria, the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Subedar (GD) by the DPC held on 01.12.2012 for the vacancy year 2012. The said DPC for the year 2012 had recommended his juniors i.e. respondents No. 6-13 to the higher post of Subedar by Office Order No. I.119012/38AR/120/2012/Admn-I(A)/342 dated 01.10.2012. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order dated 01.10.2012 for promoting his juniors i.e. respondents No. 6-13 to the higher post of Subedar, the petitioner under his letter dated 07.02.2013 requested for a personal interview with the Director General, Assam Rifles and accordingly, permission was granted for personal interview with the Director General, Assam Rifles on 02.03.2013. However, on t
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.