GAHC010262932025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : WA/397/2025

SRI SAJU KUMAR JADAV

S/O DULAL CHANDRA GHOSE, AES- I, PRESENTLY SERVING AS

INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, RO HOUSE

NO 19, SOUTH BYE LANE NO 2, LACHITNAGAR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M),

ASSAM, PIN 781007

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,

DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT, ASSAM CIVIL SECRETARIAT, BLOCK C, DISPUR,

GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781006

For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate

Mrs. R. Deka, Advocate

Mr. B. Purkayastha, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. J. Khataniar, Sr. GA,

Assam

B E F O R E –

–

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

12.12.2025

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. B.D. Das, assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, learned

Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Senior

Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondents/State.

The appellant had challenged the downgrading of the remark in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2019-2024, which allegedly led to his being excluded from the benefit of promotion to the post of Joint Director cadre despite his seniority and unblemished service.

The appellant was initially appointed as a Deputy Director/Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) through Assam Public Service Commission (APSC) in the year 2013 and had served the Department diligently. He was posted as Deputy Director in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam, since March 2021.

Under the Assam Education Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1982”) and a Government Guideline/Notification dated 05.11.2019, promotions are based on the marks awarded on the basis of the ACRs of preceding 5 years.

Though the Reporting Authority had awarded the appellant “very good” remark for the preceding 5 years, the Accepting Authority, without recording any reason, downgraded the remark to “good”. Because of this downgrading, others could steal a march over the appellant. The downgrading of the remark in his ACR by the Accepting Authority was never communicated to the appellant for him to have represented against such downgrading. But, by then, the appellant had already lost on his promotion.

This led to filing of the writ petition seeking setting aside of the downgrading of the remark in his ACR by the Accepting Authority and for directing the respondents to re-do the promotional exercise with respect to the cadre of Joint Director as per the provisions of the Rules of

1982. The appellant had also prayed for grant of retrospective consequential promotional benefits to him, as had been granted to the persons junior to him, as also for consideration of his candidature for the post of Additional Director, in the event his juniors promoted in the cadre of Joint Director vide Notification dated 15.02.2024. being considered. The learned Single Judge, relying on the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566 held that it was inappropriate for the respondents not to communicate to the appellant about the downgrading of the remark in his ACRs, even if, after the downgrading, the grade given to him was “good”, which was not an adverse entry, denying him an opportunity to represent against such downgrading .

In Dev Dutt (supra), it has been held that non-communication of adverse remarks deprives an employee of the opportunity to seek rectification, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that even “good” entries may become adverse when the benchmark applied by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion is “very good”, and non-communication of such remark to an employee deprives him of the opportunity to make representation against such remark, co