Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In the realm of government service, and play a pivotal role in evaluating officers' performance, influencing promotions, and career progression. But what are the guidelines of the Court regarding ACR/APR to officers? These reports must adhere to strict principles of transparency, objectivity, and to prevent arbitrariness. Failure to follow these can lead to legal challenges, as courts have repeatedly intervened to safeguard officers' rights. This post delves into the key Court directives, drawing from landmark judgments and related cases.
The Court has consistently emphasized that ACR/APR processes must be fair and transparent. All entries, particularly adverse remarks, must be communicated to the officer within a reasonable period. This ensures the officer can respond and improve, upholding , which guarantees equality. Evaluations should rely on objective, contemporaneous records like service books and official documents.
Key points include:- Timely Communication: Entries must be shared promptly, typically within specified timelines like one month, though these are directory rather than mandatory. Delays, if unjustified, can vitiate the process. P. Sivanandi VS Rajeev Kumar - 2017 2 118- Adverse Remarks Mandatory Disclosure: Non-communication deprives officers of representation opportunities, rendering decisions arbitrary. In , the Court held: non-communication of entries deprives the employee of the opportunity to make a representation, which is arbitrary and violates . - Holistic Assessment: Appraisals should consider the entire service record, performance, conduct, and integrity. P. Sivanandi VS Rajeev Kumar - 2017 2 118S. S. Rajvi VS Secretary to the Government - 1999 0 (Raj) 1104- Scrutiny by Authorities: Heads of Departments must review entries for compliance, ensuring evidence supports adverse remarks. S. S. Rajvi VS Secretary to the Government - 1999 0 (Raj) 1104
These guidelines prevent bias and ensure appraisals reflect true merit.
A cornerstone of Court rulings is the mandatory communication of all ACR/APR entries, especially adverse ones. In , it was reiterated that every entry, whether good or adverse, must be communicated within a reasonable period to uphold fairness and .
Failure to do so can invalidate entries used for promotions. For instance, Government of India orders post- made furnishing ACR/APAR copies mandatory from -09, following Apex Court directions. Officers must receive these after review and acceptance to allow representations.
In practice, uncommunicated 'Average' gradings have been deemed illegal when used to deny promotions. Courts direct fresh communication and reconsideration if benchmarks like 'Good' are required.
Evaluations must be based on reliable, contemporaneous records, avoiding extraneous factors. The Court stresses a holistic view: The assessment should reflect a holistic and fair assessment of the officer’s performance, conduct, and integrity, based on the entire service record. P. Sivanandi VS Rajeev Kumar - 2017 2 118S. S. Rajvi VS Secretary to the Government - 1999 0 (Raj) 1104
Principles of demand opportunities for representation against remarks impacting promotions. Non-compliance can lead to process vitiation.
Time limits for writing (e.g., 90 days) or communicating are directory, allowing administrative flexibility, but arbitrary delays prejudice rights. P. Sivanandi VS Rajeev Kumar - 2017 2 118
ACRs/APRs heavily influence and selection boards. Courts mandate strict adherence to guidelines.
In promotion cases, like disputes, improper evaluations led to directions for re-examination: The ACRs/APR be re-examined and re-written by authorised officer, if necessary, and, thereafter, the petitioner's case be evaluated for placement in the .
Coast Guard cases highlight issues like unauthorized ACR amendments or reviews violating policies (e.g., CGO 04/2005), resulting in review DPCs: a review DPC be held... to make recommendations... by applying the criteria for promotion as per CGO 02/2005. Dig K. P. S. Raghuvanshi VS Union of India - 2014 (Del) 2047
Similarly, in Manipur Civil Service promotions, considering ACRs beyond the prescribed five preceding years was deemed irregular: the Selection Committee should have taken into consideration only the ACR for the preceding 5 years.
Judicial service promotions under Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules also align, requiring communicated gradings and merit-cum-seniority, with ACRs benchmarked against IAS norms.
In compulsory retirement reviews, APR folders for the last five years are primary, with Secretaries responsible for maintenance.
Competent authorities scrutinize reports to verify justification. Defects must be rectified pre-acceptance. S. S. Rajvi VS Secretary to the Government - 1999 0 (Raj) 1104
Exceptions exist for minor procedural lapses if overall fairness persists, but core violations like non-communication of promotion-affecting remarks are fatal. P. Sivanandi VS Rajeev Kumar - 2017 2 118
In one case, below-benchmark gradings were not communicated pre- due to lack of guidelines, but post-mandate, courts enforce compliance.
To align with Court directives:- Adhere to timelines for writing, reviewing, and communicating ACRs/APRs.- Support adverse remarks with evidence and disclose promptly.- Provide representation opportunities.- Conduct diligent scrutiny to eliminate bias.- Interpret rules per .
Authorities should ensure ACRs for specific periods (e.g., Commandant and above by ) follow policies like CGOs.
Court guidelines on ACR/APR prioritize transparency and fairness, mandating communication of all entries, especially adverse ones, within reasonable timeframes. Objective assessments based on full records, coupled with , prevent arbitrariness in promotions and service matters. Officers denied rights due to lapses may seek judicial review, often leading to re-evaluations. While these principles are generally applied, specific cases vary—consult a legal expert for personalized advice.
This overview draws from established precedents like Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, alongside practical applications in diverse services. Staying compliant safeguards careers and upholds administrative integrity.
Note: This is general information based on judicial trends and not specific legal advice.
#ACRGuidelines, #SupremeCourtRulings, #OfficerAppraisal
letter dated 08.07.2019 to the eligible officers who were in the zone of consideration furnishing the Xerox copy of ACR for the last 10 years enabling the Officers to submit the representation, if any, regarding the entries and the final grading in their ACR's. ... AAP. 234/2010/11 dated 25.04.2011 following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (Supra). ... Sathiya Priya (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has held which is r....
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Singh Verma & Ors. v. Lt. ... , the Supreme Court has, in fact, held that even where the representation against adverse ACR remarks is rejected later, as the DPC had taken into account the uncommunicated adverse ACR, a Review DPC has to be held by ignoring the said adverse entry. The same was reiterated in R.K. ... From the above narrations of facts, it would be evident that when the Scrutiny Committee met on 02.11.2019 to cons....
Therefore, the Supreme Court held confidential and character reports should be written by superiors to Officers concerned. Insofar as the members of the IAS are concerned, the ACR's are written as per All India Service (Performance Proposal Reports Rules 2007). ... The guidelines given by the Supreme Court as how to ACR's must be written have been incorporated in these rules. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the case. The next judgment relied upon by the petit....
According to him, in the eventuality, the ACR is below benchmark, the only requirement in law as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. ... In Dev Dutt (supra), the Supreme Court has held, the non-communication of below benchmark grading in ACR is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ... Bhardwaj has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.R. ... Before we consider the judgments ....
In such a case, undoubtedly the Court will invoke the powers to direct the authority to reconsider the matter for promotion. ... 15. I have carefully considered the law interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri V. ... The ACRs/ APR be re-examined and re-written by authorised officer, if necessary, and, thereafter, the petitioner's case be evaluated for placement in the zone of selection. ... Because of in ordinance delay in the disposal of the appeal, the petitioner approached this Court for quas....
Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as K. Ramulu (Dr) v. S. Suryaprakash Rao (Dr) (1997) 3 SCC 59 and State of Punjab v. ... As per Para 12 of this CGO, the ACR of officers holding the rank of Commandant and above are to be annually rendered on 01 February every year. The administrative guidelines/procedures for promotion of officers to various ranks are provided in CGO 2/2009. ... Sreenivasa Rao, (1983) 3 SCC 284, the Supreme Court#HL_E....
Referring to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as K. Ramulu (Dr) v. S. Suryaprakash Rao (Dr) (1997) 3 SCC 59 and State of Punjab v. ... As per Para 12 of this CGO, the ACR of officers holding the rank of Commandant and above are to be annually rendered on 01 February every year. The administrative guidelines/procedures for promotion of officers to various ranks are provided in CGO 2/2009. ... All vacancies in the rank accruing from 01 Apr to 31 Mar of next....
He submits that the Government of India had made it mandatory vide its GO dated 14.5.2009(Annexure-A4) for furnishing copies of ACR/APARs to the individual employees with effect from the reporting period 2008-09 based on the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. ... The decisions communicated by Government of India in the said OM following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt vs. ... ACR/APAR. ... Where Government servant has only one supervisory level above him as in the case of personal staff attached ot #HL_S....
FURTHER IN THE OPINION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE THE PCR/APR/ACR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE OFFICERS PERFORMANCE IS GENERALLY GOOD DURING THE PERIOD. ... In view of above the provisions of ACR/APR not required as Very Good and only 3 APAR out of 5 ACR/APAR required Very Good and remaining 2 are generally Good.” 6. ... THERE SOULD BE NO ADVERSE ENTRY IN ANY OF THE ACRS UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE PROVISIONS OF #....
FURTHER IN THE OPINION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE THE PCR/APR/ACR UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE SHOULD REFLECT THAT THE OFFICERS PERFORMANCE IS GENERALLY GOOD DURING THE PERIOD. ... In view of above the provisions of ACR/APR not required as Very Good and only 3 APAR out of 5 ACR/APAR required Very Good and remaining 2 are generally Good.” 6. ... THERE SOULD BE NO ADVERSE ENTRY IN ANY OF THE ACRS UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE PROVISIONS OF #....
The photocopy of the APR of the respondents for the 2011-12 placed on record, the original of which is stated by the appellants in their reply affidavit to have been sent to the Commissioner/Secretary, Forests, for acceptance, also depicts the grading of the respondent as ‘very good’. In the circumstances, it is established that the two APRs of the respondents, which, at least, were available, have not been actually perused and gone through by the Committee. It is reiterated that ACR/APR for the year 2013-14 is admitted to be complete and graded as ‘very good’. Further, it ....
(b) The criteria in para 9(iv) (a) is modified so as to require ACR gradings for each of the five years under consideration to be minimum ‘A’ (Very Good) for all categories.” 5.3. The clause regarding relaxation in ACR gradings for SC/ST officers is deleted. As against the aforesaid resolution dated 15.01.2010, the High Court received certain representations, including those from Delhi Higher Judicial Services Association as also from Delhi Judicial Services Association. The relevant part of the said resolution dated 15.01.2010 reads as under:- “(a)
According to the answering respondent, the Office memorandum dated 14.5.2009 requiring communication of the full APR (earlier known as ACR) including the overall grading and assessment of integrity to the concerned officer after the report is complete with the remarks of the Reviewing and Accepting Officer, etc. has been made with prospectively i.e. with effect from 1.4.2009. The ACR was not communicated to him earlier as there was no provision or guidelines in the government department to communicate below benchmark grading in the ACR to the officer concerned: the petition....
8. The promotions are made in accordance with the Rules read with Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. This O.M. has laid down the guidelines, inter-alia, as to how many Officers should be considered qua the number of vacancies, how many years ACRs should be considered, what should be the gradings for promotions etc. Under Clause 5.2.1 the Confidential Rolls for “five” preceding years should be considered to assess the merit and suitability of the Officers. Under Clause 5.3.1, the Officers graded as “ Outstanding” would rank in en-bloc senior to those who are graded as “Very ....
12.Learned Advocate General referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court that has drawn guidelines regarding what would be a genuine public interest litigation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
