[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Saju Kumar Jadav vs The State Of Assam on 12 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010262932025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/397/2025
SRI SAJU KUMAR JADAV
S/O DULAL CHANDRA GHOSE, AES- I, PRESENTLY SERVING AS
INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, SOUTH SALMARA MANKACHAR, RO HOUSE
NO 19, SOUTH BYE LANE NO 2, LACHITNAGAR, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M),
ASSAM, PIN 781007
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION SECONDARY EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, ASSAM CIVIL SECRETARIAT, BLOCK C, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN 781006
For the appellant/petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. B. D. Das, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. R. Deka, Advocate
Mr. B. Purkayastha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N. J. Khataniar, Sr. GA,
Assam
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
12.12.2025
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. B.D. Das, assisted by Mrs. R. Deka, learned
Advocate for the appellant and Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned Senior
Page No.# 2/5
Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondents/State.
The appellant had challenged the downgrading of the remark in his
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 2019-2024, which
allegedly led to his being excluded from the benefit of promotion to the
post of Joint Director cadre despite his seniority and unblemished service.
The appellant was initially appointed as a Deputy Director/Inspector
of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) through Assam
Public Service Commission (APSC) in the year 2013 and had served the
Department diligently. He was posted as Deputy Director in the
Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam, since March 2021.
Under the Assam Education Service Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred
to as "Rules of 1982") and a Government Guideline/Notification dated
05.11.2019, promotions are based on the marks awarded on the basis of
the ACRs of preceding 5 years.
Though the Reporting Authority had awarded the appellant "very
good" remark for the preceding 5 years, the Accepting Authority,
without recording any reason, downgraded the remark to "good".
Because of this downgrading, others could steal a march over the
appellant. The downgrading of the remark in his ACR by the Accepting
Authority was never communicated to the appellant for him to have
represented against such downgrading. But, by then, the appellant had
already lost on his promotion.
This led to filing of the writ petition seeking setting aside of the
downgrading of the remark in his ACR by the Accepting Authority and
for directing the respondents to re-do the promotional exercise with
respect to the cadre of Joint Director as per the provisions of the Rules of
Page No.# 3/5
1982. The appellant had also prayed for grant of retrospective
consequential promotional benefits to him, as had been granted to the
persons junior to him, as also for consideration of his candidature for the
post of Additional Director, in the event his juniors promoted in the cadre
of Joint Director vide Notification dated 15.02.2024. being considered.
The learned Single Judge, relying on the proposition of law laid down
by the Supreme Court in the Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Others, (2008) 8
SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh vs. Union of India and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 566 ,
held that it was inappropriate for the respondents not to communicate to
the appellant about the downgrading of the remark in his ACRs, even if,
after the downgrading, the grade given to him was "good", which was
not an adverse entry, denying him an opportunity to represent against
such downgrading .
In Dev Dutt (supra), it has been held that non-communication of
adverse remarks deprives an employee of the opportunity to seek
rectification, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
and that even "good" entries may become adverse when the
benchmark applied by the Departmental Promotion Committee for
promotion is "very good", and non-communication of such remark to an
employee deprives him of the opportunity to make representation
against such remark, consequently denying promotion to him, which
violates Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and that non-
transparency has the effect of diminishing the administrative efficiency
and morale of the employee.
Same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh
(supra).
Page No.# 4/5
As noted above, relying on the afore-noted judgments of the
Supreme Court, the learned Single Judge directed as follows:
"15. In the result this petition stands allowed. Following the dictum of Dev
Dutta's case, it is provided that the "good" entry in the ACR of him for the
year 2019 - 2020 (Annexure - 8A), 2020 - 2021 (Annexure - 8B) and
2023 - 2024 (Annexure - 8C), shall be communicated to the petitioner
forthwith and he should be permitted to make a representation against
the same, praying for its up-gradation. And in the event of allowing his
up-gradation, he should be considered forthwith for being promoted to the
post of Joint Director, retrospectively, by constituting a review
Departmental Promotion Committee, and if he is found eligible for being
promoted to the said post and on such promotion being made, he will get
the benefit of higher scale of pay and the arrears of pay shall be paid
with interest @ 8% per annum, till the date of payment.
16. If, in the meantime, the petitioner is found eligible for being promoted
to the next higher post, then the respondent authorities shall also
consider the same.
17. The exercise mentioned in paragraph No. 15 of this order, shall be
carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of
this order and place the same before the respondent authority with a
period of two weeks from today."
Mr. Das, learned senior Advocate has questioned this judgment on
the sole ground that his being relegated to the Accepting Authority to
make representation for reviewing the downgrading from "very good" to
"good" would be rendered meaningless if the downgraded remark is not
set aside. He submits that the Accepting Authority be directed to pass
necessary orders for making fresh review/assessment for grading the
appellant.
From a reading of the directions given by the learned Single Judge,
we find that the directions amounted to the same, but the downgrading
was not explicitly set aside.
Page No.# 5/5
We, therefore, deem it appropriate to modify the judgment of the
learned Single Judge to the extent that the downgraded remark from
"very good" to "good" stands quashed for the reason of the same
having not been communicated to the appellant.
The appellant is given the liberty to approach the
Reviewing/Accepting Authority with a representation to reassess his
ACRs. If, in the assessment of the Accepting Authority, the appellant is
required to be graded "very good", that shall be taken into
consideration by the respondents for promoting him to higher post,
provided any promotional post is vacant.
With the afore-noted modification in the judgment impugned, the
writ appeal stands disposed off.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
