Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The dispute in this case has arisen from the appellants claim for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV in the services of the respondents in the year of 2014-2015. The appellant’s grievance is that the entries in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report for 2010-11 and 2011-12 were not disclosed, as a result of which he was unable to submit a representation at the material time. The appellant had the following gradings in the APARs:
(i) 2010-2011 “C” (ii) 2011-2012 “B” (iii) 2012-2013 “A” (iv) 2013-2014 “A”
The Writ petition which was filed by the appellant before the Allahabad High Court was dismissed on the ground that absence of adverse entry or an entry below benchmark, or the failure to communicate did not result in actionable grievance.
The Supreme Court bench which was dealing with the matter comprised of justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Indira Banerjee who noted that in Sukhdev Singh versus Union of India, a 3 judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that every entry in ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period of time. The court also clarified that the judgment is declaratory in nature. It cannot be contended that this decision has been implemented from 2013-14 and that has no application for the earlier years.
The Supreme Court has issued the following directions:
(i) Within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the respondent shall communicate to the appellant the uncommunicated entries in the APARs for the years which were taken into account for the promotional exercise of 2014-15;
(ii) Within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the above, it would be open to the appellant to submit his objections and representation to the respondent;
(iii) The representation shall be considered within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation;
(iv) Thereafter, based on the result of the decision, the competent authority shall take a decision on whether any modification in the decision for promotion from Scale III to Scale IV for 2014-15 in respect of the appellant is warranted; and
(v) In order to ensure that this exercise is carried out fairly, we direct that the competent authority shall ensure that the representation that is submitted by the appellant is placed before an authority at a sufficiently senior level to obviate any bias or injustice.
The impugned judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
86540
103860
630
114
59824