Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahtap Singh Tanwar vs Department Of Technical Education on 8 October, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29375
1 WP-7101-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 7101 of 2019
MAHTAP SINGH TANWAR
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri L. C. Patne - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde GA for State.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider and
grant the petitioner benefit of II time payscale upon completion of 20 years
of service w.e.f. 6.10.2017 in the payscale of Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 G.P.
and to refix his pay and to release the arrears thereof.
2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been denied the
aforesaid benefits on the ground of non-availability of ACRs. Counsel
submits that the ACRS for the petitioner for the years under consideration
were not at all communicated to the petitioner and his ACRs from the year
2012 till 2016 has been written on a single day on 20.04.2017 at the instance
of respondent NO.4 who was highly prejudiced against the petitioner as the
petitioner highlighted his illegal and arbitary deed to the notice of respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 and prayed for enquiry to be conducted against him.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29375
2 WP-7101-2019
3. The respondents have filed reply and submitted that as per Govt.
circular dated 5.07.2016, the petitioner was under obligation to obtain his/her
ACR from the competent authority. It is further submitted that petitioner
never demanded for communication of his ACR and therefore the ACRs
were not communicated to the petitioner and on the basis of aforesaid ACR,
the petitioner was not entitled to get any benefit. The petitioner submitted a
letter dated 13.3.2018 demanding for supply of ACRs, then the petitioner
was supplied ACR.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
stand of the respondents that the ACRs were not communicated because the
petitioner had not demanded, cannot be sustained in the light of various
judgments passed by the Apex Court. The law relating to consideration of
uncommunicated ACRs for promotion or upgradation is no longer res
integra. In the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji Vs. State of Punjab & Ors (1979)
2 SCC 368, the court held that the non-inclusion of a government servant in
the select list on account of adverse entry which was not communicated and
the opportunity was not afforded to submit representation, cannot be made
basis for denial of the promotion. In the case of Kaluram Patidar Vs. State of
MP & Ors WP No.11064/2010 decided on 25.8.2011 , this court relying on
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh
Dastidar Vs. Union of India (2009) 6 SCC 146 came to the conclusion that
the ACRs which have been resulted in denial of the selection grade cannot be
considered to be a ground for denying the claim to an employee. In the case
of Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 8 SCC 725, it has been held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29375
3 WP-7101-2019
that non-communication of entries in the ACRS of a public servant has civil
consequences because it may affect his chance for promotion or get other
benefits. Such non-communication of adverse ACRS would be arbitrary
and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same has been
followed by a coordinate Bench in the case of Rajendra Kumar Verma vs.
State of M.P. 2017(1) MPLJ 391 . The division bench of this court in the
c a s e Higher Education Department Vs. Dr.(Smt) Kavita Bundela WA
No.421/2017 decided on 23.10.2017 has taken a similar view.
5. In the light of aforesaid judgments, the respondents are under
obligation to communicate the ACRs which may prejudice his case for
promotion or upgradation. In the case of U.P.Jal Nigam Vs. Prabhat Chandra
Jain, 1996(2) SCC 363, the Apex Court held that all the ACRs even
including 'Average' grade are to be communicated to an employee if such
ACR is likely to affect his promotion or other claims. In view of aforesaid
judgments which are discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that the stand of
the respondents that ACRs are not required to be communicated by the
employer has no merits. In the present case it is not in dispute that ACRs
were not communicated to the petitioner before they were acted upon. In
view of aforesaid, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs by
constituting a screening committe within 60 days from today and if the
petitioner is found to be suitable ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs, the
petitioner shall be granted the benefit of II time scale of pay upon completion
of 20 years w.e.f. 6.10.2017 in the payscale of Rs.9300-34800 + 4200 G.P.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:29375
4 WP-7101-2019
and respondents shall re-fix his pay and release arrears thereof along with
interest @ 6% per annum from the date it became due till its payment.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
