V K Bhardwaj vs State of H.P - 2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2747

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Service Law - Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) - Non-communication of entries - Whether entries graded as 'Good' must be communicated to the employee - Law laid down by the Apex Court is that every entry in the ACR of a public servant, regardless of whether it is 'poor', 'fair', 'average', 'good', or 'very good', must be communicated within a reasonable period to ensures transparency and allow for representation - Non-communication of such entries is arbitrary and violative of the principle of fairness and Article 14 of the Constitution (Paras 9, 14, 15, 16, 17).

(B) Promotion - Selection Post - Where a senior official is superseded by juniors based on uncommunicated 'Good' entries in ACRs, such entries cannot be taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for denying promotion - The official is entitled to promotion from the date their juniors were promoted (Paras 9, 11).

(C) Administrative Orders - Internal memoranda specifying that communication of entries shall apply prospectively cannot override the constitutional mandate of fairness and the established legal position that all entries must be communicated to the employee (Para 11).

Facts of the case:
A senior-most official was overlooked for promotion to a high-ranking selection post because the Departmental Promotion Committee assessed him as 'Good' based on certain yearly reports, while his juniors were assessed as 'Very Good' and promoted. The official was never informed of the 'Good' gradings, depriving him of the opportunity to seek their upgrade. Although he was eventually promoted later, he sought promotion and consequential benefits from the date his juniors were elevated.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the failure to communicate the gradings was a violation of the law established by the Apex Court. The State's argument that communication of entries was only required prospectively based on a subsequent office memorandum was rejected as it cannot override the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness.

Issues: Whether 'Good' entries in ACRs must be communicated to the public servant and whether non-communication of such entries can be a valid ground to deny promotion to a senior official in favor of juniors.

Ratio Decidendi: Fairness and transparency in public administration require that all entries in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to enable representation. Uncommunicated ACR entries that adversely affect promotion opportunities cannot be legally considered by a DPC, and ignoring such entries would be the correct course to avoid grave injustice.

Result: Petition allowed. The petitioner is promoted to the post of Chief Engineer w.e.f. 22.05.2009 with all consequential benefits, with the direction to create a supernumerary post if necessary, without disturbing the promotions of the junior officials.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Writ seeking promotion to Chief Engineer from date juniors promoted — Challenge to DPC assessment based on uncommunicated ACR entries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Petitioner asserts uncommunicated ACRs cannot be considered — Respondents argue communication only prospective from 2011. (Para 4 , 5 )

3. Petition allowed — Petitioner granted promotion from date of juniors with benefits, supernumerary post created if needed. (Para 11 , 12 )

4. Must every entry in a public servant's Annual Confidential Report be communicated to him?

Yes, per the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt and subsequent decisions, all entries must be communicated; non-communication is arbitrary under Article 14. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

5. Can uncommunicated ACR entries be considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion?

No, uncommunicated entries cannot be taken into account because they have civil consequences and violate the principle of fairness and natural justice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )

6. Does a prospective office memorandum override the law on communication of ACRs?

No, the law declared by the Supreme Court overrides any government order or rule; the OM making communication prospective does not apply. (Para 11 )

7. What remedy is available when an employee was denied promotion due to uncommunicated entries and juniors have retired?

The court can order promotion from the date of juniors with all consequential benefits and create a supernumerary post if necessary, without disturbing private respondents. (Para 11 , 12 )

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents No.1 and 2 to promote him as Chief Engineer w.e.f. 18.09.2008 on adhoc basis, when the said post was vacated by Shri K.R. Singh and the name of petitioner was recommended to give him the charge of Chief Engineer, National Highway, HP PWD, Shimla, being the senior most officer and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 22.0P5.2009, when juniors to him, who have been arrayed as respondents No.3 to 5, were promoted, with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as Superintending Engineer with the respondenots-State and as per communication dated 06.05.200 8 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.1 to the Secretary (Personnel) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, a proposal was mooted to give the petitioneras additional charge of Chief Engineer National Highway, CHPPWD, Shimla being the senior most Superintending Engineer in addition to his duties. It was mentioned that no Court case/Vigilance case/enquiry was pending against the petitioner. However, vide Notification dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure P-3), Shri B.D. Joshi, Superintending Engineer, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner, was appointed as Chief Engineer, Project Director in H.P. Road Infrastructure Development Corporation, Shimla (for short the ‘HPRIDC’) in the pay-scale of Rs.18600-22100 with immediate effect in the public interest.

3. Thereafter, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short ‘DPC’) for regular promotion to the post of Chief Engineer was held on 20.05.2009 and the petitioner being the senior most and eligible SuperinPtending Engineerand in the zone of consideration was considered alongwithrespondents No.3 to 5 in the order of seniority of Superintending Engineers. Total nin e Superintending Engineers in the zone of consideroation were considered and the DPC, after evaluating t he ACRs of the eligible Superintending Engineers for the last five years, made its independent assessment and the petitioner was assessed as ‘Good’ as per his ACRs and thus, his name was not recommenCded for promotion, as is evident from perusal of Annexure R-3. The petitioner was given the ACRs ‘Very Good’ for the year 2003-04, ‘Good’ for the year 2004-05, ‘Very Good’ for the year 2005-06, ‘Good’ for the year 2006-07, ‘Good’ for the year 2007-08 and thus the DPC had overall assessed him as ‘Good’ (page-174).

4. The claim of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner was never conveyed about his ACRs and his ACRs for the year 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 being Good has affected his chances of promotion. Since the petitioner was not communicated of his ACRs having Good, the same could not have been considered by the DPC and the petitioner being the senior most ought to have been promoted, ignoring the said ACRs.After the recommePndations of the DPC, respondent No.1 had issued Notification dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure P-5), when juniors to the petitioner were promoted. The petitioner after coming to know about the said fact, made a representation too hold review DPC, however, the respondents did not convene the review DPC. It has been averred that though the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Chief Engineer as per Notification dated 08.01.2010 (Annexure P-9), but since he was senior to respondenCts No.3 to 5, when the DPC was convened on 20.05.2009, the action on the part of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary as well as discriminatory. It has also been averred that as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and others (2008) 8 SCC 725, which judgment has later on been affirmed by the Hon’ble three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar vs. Union of India and others 2009 (16) SCC 146, the promotion of respondents No.3 to 5 made to the posts of Chief Engineer be quashed and the petitioner may be promoted to the post of Chief

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
V K Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
CWPOA/2953/2019

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Must every entry in a public servant's Annual Confidential Report be communicated to him?

5. Can uncommunicated ACR entries be considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion?

6. Does a prospective office memorandum override the law on communication of ACRs?

7. What remedy is available when an employee was denied promotion due to uncommunicated entries and juniors have retired?

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJV K Bhardwaj – AppellantVersusState of H.P – RespondentCWPOA/2953/2019

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Must every entry in a public servant's Annual Confidential Report be communicated to him?

5. Can uncommunicated ACR entries be considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion?

6. Does a prospective office memorandum override the law on communication of ACRs?

7. What remedy is available when an employee was denied promotion due to uncommunicated entries and juniors have retired?

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
V K Bhardwaj – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
CWPOA/2953/2019