Gauhati High Court
Harendra Nath Roy vs Union Of India And 5 Ors on 20 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010159902022
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5452/2022
HARENDRA NATH ROY
S/O. LT. PRANESHWAR RAY, PRESENTLY SERVING AS NO.G/153824Y
WARRANT OFFICER/GD (GENERAL DUTY) AT 15TH ASSAM RIFLES C/O. 99
APO, PIN-932015.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIR, NEW DELHI-110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ASSAM RIFLES
HEAD QUARTER DIRECTORATE GENERAL
ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG-11.
3:THE COMMANDANT 15TH ASSAM RIFLES
C/O. 99 APO
PIN-932015.
4:JC-153283 NAIB SUBEDAR/GENERAL DUTY MALA RAM YADAV
C/O. THE COMMANDANT 15TH ASSAM RIFLES
C/O. 99 APO
PIN-932015.
5:JC-153368 NAIB SUBEDAR/GENERAL DUTY DILAWAR SINGH
C/O. THE COMMANDANT 15TH ASSAM RIFLES
C/O. 99 APO
Page No.# 2/4
PIN-932015
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S BORA,
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. K GOGOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 20.11.2024
Heard Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also, heard Mr. K.
Gogoi, learned CGC, for the respondents Union of India.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner is seeking consideration for promotion to the rank of Naib
Subedar/G.D. (General Duty) w.e.f. 01.05.2022 i.e. from the date on
which his juniors were promoted with all consequential service benefits.
The specific case of the petitioner is that the petitioner who was enrolled
as a Rifleman/G.D in the Assam Rifles on 17.07.1989 was subsequently
promoted to the rank of Havildar/G.D. in the year 2003 and thereafter to
the rank of Warrant Officer/G.D. in the year 2016. Though the petitioner
was expecting promotion thereafter to the rank of Naib Subedar/G.D,
however, instead of promoting the petitioner, the respondent authorities
promoted his juniors to the post of Naib Subedar/G.D. Situated thus, the
petitioner filed representation before the Commandant 15th Assam Rifles
on 29/06/2022 seeking promotion as per his seniority to the said post of
Naib Subedar. However, the respondent by letter dated 03.07.2022
turned down the said representation filed by the petitioner on the
ground that due to lack of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) criteria the
Page No.# 3/4
petitioner could not be promoted to the said post of Naib Subedar/G.D.
Accordingly, the present petition has been filed.
3. Pertinent that it is admitted at the bar that the entries in the ACR in
question was not communicated to the petitioner.
4. It is submitted at the bar that the issue involved in the present writ
petition is squarely covered by the Judgment and Order dated
09.12.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C) no. 9571/2019 in the case of
Hav/na Murali Kumar P Vs. The Union of India and 3 others and
Judgment and Order dated 27/01/2022 passed in WP(C) no. 4872/2019
in the case of Yogendra Nath Singh Vs The Union of India and 2
Others.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid cases indicates that this Court by relying
on the decision of the Apex Court in Dev Dut Vs Union of India report
in 2008 8 SCC 725 specially paragraph 41 held that non communication
of entries in the ACR of a Public Servant, whether he is in Civil, Judicial,
Police or in other services (other than Military), is arbitrary and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution.
6. It further appears that that this Court in the aforesaid case i.e.
Hav/na Murali Kumar P (supra) after noting that the issue as
whether the Assam Rifles is a military organization or is a para military
organization is pending adjudication before the Delhi High Court held
that the proposition enunciated by the Apex Court in paragraph 41 of
Dev Dutt (supra) is applicable to the petitioner in that case, who is an
employee of the Assam Rifles and accordingly directed the respondent
authorities in the Assam Rifles to provide MACP benefit to the petitioner
Page No.# 4/4
from the concerned date. As it is submitted at the bar that the aforesaid
issue is still pending before the Delhi High Court, I find no reason to
defer from the aforesaid Judgment and Order passed by this Court and
accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition in similar line as
that of Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2021 passed in WP(C) no. 9571
of 2019.
7. In view of the above the adverse entry in the ACR of the concerned
having not been communicated to the petitioner and the same having
been relied upon to deny the petitioner for promotion is unsustainable.
8. In view of the above, the letter dated 03.07.2022 intimating the
petitioner that the petitioner is not meeting the ACR criteria for further
promotion is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to
reconsider the case of the petitioner for the promotion to the subject
post in accordance with law.
9. It is needless to be clarified that the entire exercise shall be carried
out within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of the Court's order.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
