GAHC010077972023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/2129/2023

PANKAJ DIXIT

S/O K.C. DIXIT, R/O 101/158A, KUMBHA MARG, PRATAP NAGAR,

SANGANER, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN, PIN-302033, PRESENTLY WORKING AS

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) UNDER H/Q 14 BRTF, UNDER CHIEF

ENGINEER, PROJECT VARTAK, TEZPUR, C/O 99 APO

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.

THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,

R.NO. 101-A, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110011

2:THE JOINT SECRETARY (BORDER ROADS)

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

B WING

4TH FLOOR

SENA BHAWAN DELHI CANTT.

NEW DELHI-110011

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER ROADS

HEADQUARTER DGBR

SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN

RING ROAD

NEW DELHI-110011

4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECT) VARTAK

PIN-931716 C/O 99 APO

TEZPUR

ASSA

Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice SOUMITRA SAIKIA Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. IH Saikia, Advocate Advocate for the respondents : Mr. H Gupta, CGC Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.09.2025 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 19.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes Judgment and Order (CAV)

Heard Mr. IH Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel, for the respondents.

2] The petitioner is a permanent resident of the state of Rajasthan and he was serving as an Executive Engineer (Civil) under the Border Roads Engineering Service in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), 14 Border Roads Task Force under Project Vartak, C/o.99 APO, at the time when the writ petition was filed.

3] The essential facts necessary for deciding the matter is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) on 18-05-2002 in the General Reserve Engineering Force in Border Roads Engineering Service. The respondent Department had initiated the process for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) from the feeder category of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) for the vacancy year 2010-11. The petitioner although eligible for being promoted to the next higher post from Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), he was not promoted to the next higher post on the ground of having below benchmark grading (BBM) for the relevant years under consideration in his ACRs. According to the petitioner for promotion in the vacancy year of 2010-11 the relevant years under consideration are 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09. According to the petitioner for the year 2004-05, his ACR gradings were ‘partly good’ and ‘partly very good’. For the year 2007-08 and 2008-09, his ACR gradings were ‘very good’ and ‘good’ respectively. However, for the years 2005- 06 and 2006-07 his ACR gradings were “average”. According to the petitioner because of 2 (two) average gradings for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 he was considered having below benchmark gradings and therefore, he was not considered for promotion. According to the petitioner, these 2 (two) gradings of ‘average’ for the years 2005-06 and 2006-07 were adverse remarks and therefore, were required to be communicated to the petitioner enabling him to represent before the higher authority before his case was considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). At the time when the gradings of “average” was awarded before the matter being considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the respondent authorities did not communicate these gradings to the petitioner and therefore, he was deprived from filing appropriate representations before the authorities. There was no warning or no performance enhancing counseling, neither verbal nor written or any intimation was issued to the petitioner for enhancement of his performance for the same 2 (two) periods. Subsequently, the petitioner after having received the impugned ACRs filed representation on 20-07-2010, praying for upgradation of t