Promotion eligibility criteria must be upheld, and adverse remarks in APAR must be communicated timely to comply with natural justice principles.

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

18.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11347 of 2021. Appellant herein was the petitioner in the W.P. (C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibits P2, P9, P12 and Exhibit P6 to the extent they are adverse to the appellant/petitioner and further sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion as Safety Inspector in preference to his juniors without relying on Exhibit P6, with all consequential benefits.

3. The learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dismissed the Writ Petition inter alia holding that there was no merit in the appellant's claim for promotion and that he was not eligible for the same as he did not have the required Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) remark of ‘Very Good’ earlier and the same remained ‘Average’ even later. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has filed this appeal.

4. Heard Sri.Vishnu Prasad N.K., Advocate for the appellant and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the denial of promotion to the appellant was based on adverse remarks in the APAR which were never communicated to the appellant promptly, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. It is contended that, as per Clause 6 of Exhibit R1(b) Circular, the submission and maintenance of APARs in respect of employees other than Deputy Heads of Departments must strictly adhere to the schedule annexed thereto (Annexure II), with a compliance report to be submitted by the first week of September each year. However, in contravention of this mandate, the APAR for the year 2020 was communicated to the appellant only on 29.01.2021, and that too in response to the appellant’s representation dated 22.01.2021. It is submitted that such delayed communication of adverse remarks deprived the appellant of an effective opportunity of representation, rendering the appraisal process vitiated by procedural illegality and arbitrariness, and consequently denial of fair and lawful consideration for promotion. The learned Single Judge, it is submitted, had overlooked the said specific contention.

6. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge had not considered the fact that simultaneous communication of 5-year APAR results is procedural unfairness, as it not only denies the appellant opportunity to correct or improve upon past assessment, but also creates prejudice by allowing adverse or below benchmark entries to accumulate without the appellant’s knowledge. Such communication, according to the learned counsel, constitutes a clear violation of principles of natural justice, fairness and transparency governing service jurisprudence.

7. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the appellant on the date of consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), and had also failed to appreciate that no penalty, either minor or major, was ever imposed upon him, as borne out from the APARs for the period 2014 to 2020. The entries disclosing warnings, it is submitted, do not amount to punishment or adverse service consequences and, therefore, ought to have been treated as wholly irrelevant for the denial of promotion.

8. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider that the entries in each year are identical and verbatim copies of the previous year, pointing to the fact that they had been created at about the sam