[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 1 December, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010041322025




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:16433

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1455/2025

            NO. JC-3400194 NAIB SUBEDAR/GD (GENERAL DUTY) AMAR NATH RAM
            S/O.- LATE JADDU RAM OF 45TH ASSAM RIFLES, C/O 99 APO, PRESENTLY
            SERVING AS NAIB SUBEDAR GD (GENERAL DUTY) 13TH NDRF, ASSAM
            RIFLES, C/O 56 APO

            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS.
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY THE GOVERNMENT 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 45TH ASSAM RIFLES
             C/O 99 APO
             PIN 932045

            4:THE COMMANDANT 13TH NATIONAL DISASTER RESPONSE FORCE

             ASSAM RIFLES C/O 56 AP

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B PATHAK, MR. T NATH,MS M TIWARI,MR V KUMAR

Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. R. Devi, CGC

Page No.# 2/8

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

Judgment & Order(Oral)

Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Subedar/General Duty (GD) as per his seniority, i.e., with effect from the date when his junior was promoted, by expunging/ignoring any uncommunicated entry/grading in his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and to grant all the consequential service benefits.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was enrolled in the

Assam Rifles on 28.06.1986 as a Rifleman/GD and was posted to the 5 th Assam Rifles, Lokra, Assam, in the year 1987. He was promoted to the rank of Havildar/GD in the year 2000 and subsequently to the rank of Naib Subedar/GD in the year 2015.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that after promotion to Naib Page No.# 3/8

Subedar/GD, his next higher promotional rank is Subedar/GD. The petitioner has completed the qualitative requirements for promotion and being the senior-most Naib Subedar in his Unit, was due to be considered for promotion in the year 2021. Despite his eligibility, the petitioner has been deprived of promotion, while the said benefit has been granted to his juniors. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities for the grant of promotion as per his seniority or to communicate the reason for non-consideration of his promotion. Despite requesting the respondents to communicate the reason, his grievance was ignored. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 30.11.2024 to the respondent authorities seeking promotion as per his seniority.

5. It is contended that the respondent authorities, vide letter dated 27.12.2024, informed the petitioner that his case had been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in the year 2024, wherein, his last five Annual Confidential Reports/Annual Performance Assessment Reports (ACRs/APARs) for 2019-2023 were examined and he was graded "High Average" (05 points) in the year 2020, below the prescribed benchmark of "Above Average" (07 points) i.e. "very good"

required for promotion. Consequently, the name of the petitioner was not recommended for promotion to Subedar/GD, being ineligible under the ACR criteria.

6. It is contended that that no adverse entry in his ACRs/APARs had ever been communicated to the petitioner and he was unaware of the same until receipt of the reply dated 27.12.2024. It is a settled position of law that every ACR/APAR must be communicated to the concerned employee Page No.# 4/8

and consideration of any uncommunicated entry is impermissible. Since the petitioner's ACR for the year 2020 was not communicated to him, it could not lawfully be taken into account for denying his promotion to the rank of Subedar/GD with effect from the year 2021.

7. Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has rendered more than 38 years of unblemished service to the organization and is now at the fag end of his service career. Except for the grading in the ACR, which was below the prescribed benchmark required for promotion, the petitioner fulfills all the promotional qualitative requirements. The entries/remarks in the petitioner's ACR have never been communicated to him, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to raise his grievance by way of a representation in terms of the relevant provisions, which the respondents have expressly violated.

8. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel, while referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 9 SCC 566, which have been reiterated in the subsequent cases, submits that law relating to recording of Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and its communication, has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has held that uncommunicated remarks in the ACRs cannot be acted upon and are directed to be expunged. Therefore, he submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to grant promotion to the petitioner on fulfilling all the promotional qualitative requirements by ignoring the umcommunicated entry/grading in the ACR.

Page No.# 5/8

9. Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC for the respondents, submits that for grant of promotion, the petitioner's case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held in the year 2024. The last five Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2018-19 to 2022-23 were taken into account to ascertain eligibility for promotion. It was revealed that the petitioner had been graded "High Average" by his Reporting Officer in the ACR for the year 2019-20, which is below the prescribed benchmark of "Above Average" or "Outstanding" required for promotion. Consequently, the petitioner was found ineligible for promotion and his immediate junior was promoted to the rank of Subedar/GD.

10. Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC submits that the respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the extant policy. The claim of the petitioner for promotion is not sustainable, as he did not meet the prescribed ACR criteria. A legal notice submitted by the petitioner was duly received and a reasoned reply was provided vide letter dated 27.12.2024. She submits that Assam Rifles transitioned to the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) system in 2021, whereas the ACR system governed by Record of Instructions (ROI) 04/1997 was followed prior to that. As per the ROI, confidential reports are not shown to a JCO except where weak or adverse assessments are required to be communicated. In the instant case, the petitioner's ACR for the year 2019-20 did not contain any adverse remarks and was graded based purely on his performance during the assessment period. Therefore, non-communication of the ACR does not constitute any violation of Rules or arbitrariness.

11. Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC, submits that the ACR grading is a Page No.# 6/8

mandatory criterion for promotion. Since the petitioner's grading fell below the prescribed benchmark, he was rendered ineligible for promotion and his supersession in the DPC held on 2024, was strictly in accordance with the extant policy. She submits that promotion in the Assam Rifles is carried out strictly as per seniority and subject to fulfillment of the prescribed qualitative requirements. Therefore, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner, nor any of his legal or constitutional rights have been infringed. Accordingly, the present petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

13. The petitioner, who enrolled as a Rifleman/GD in the year 1986 and

posted to 5th Assam Rifles, was promoted from time to time to different higher ranks, the last being the rank of Naib Subedar/GD in the year 2015. The petitioner admittedly has completed the qualitative requirements for promotion to the post of Subedar/GD being the senior most Naib Subedar/GD in his Unit. The non-recommendation for promotion by the DPC appears to be due to the grading of "High Average" by his Reporting Officer in the ACR for the year 2019-20, which is below the prescribed benchmark of "Above Average" or "Outstanding" required for promotion.

14. Record reveals that admittedly the entry/grading in the ACRs of the petitioner was never communicated to him. The entry/grading in the APAR/ACR requires the Reviewing Authority to ensure communication of the APAR/ACR to the ratee. Thus, the respondent authority ought to have communicated the entry/grading on the APAR/ACR to the petitioner.

Page No.# 7/8

15. The law relating to the recording of ACRs/APARs has been well settled by a catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, right from Dev Dutt (supra) to Union of India v. G.R. Meghwal, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1291. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every entry, irrespective of whether it is poor, average, good, very good, or outstanding, should be communicated to the concerned government servant within a reasonable period. Non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee. Thus, non-communication of any entry/grading in the APAR is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, an uncommunicated entry/grade in an ACR/APAR cannot be acted upon and deserves to be expunged.

16. In the present case, as noted above, although the respondents have submitted that the grading was fair and based on performance without any adverse remark, it is undisputed that the entry/grade in the APAR of the petitioner was not communicated to him, which is not in accordance with the law. However, the authorities have acted on the said uncommunicated entry/grading of the APAR, thereby depriving the petitioner from being promoted to the post of Subedar/GD, to which the petitioner is legally entitled and therefore, such action is illegal and as such, the same deserves to be expunged.

17. In view of the above, the action of denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Subedar/GD on the basis of uncommunicated entry/grading in the ACR is not sustainable. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to ignore the uncommunicated entries/grading in the ACRs/APARs of the petitioner for the year 2019-20 and grant Page No.# 8/8

promotion to the post of Subedar/GD as per his seniority from the date when his junior was promoted, along with all consequential service benefits, within a period of three (3) months from today.