Promotion Is a Right to Be Considered, Not a Guarantee: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Tribunal’s Order Substituting ACRs for IRS Officer’s Promotion

“Judicial orders cannot override statutory service rules or invent eligibility criteria—promotion must be earned, not assumed” – In a significant pronouncement Rajasthan High Court quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that had directed reconsideration of promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (CCIT) based on an earlier year’s ACR (2001–02) instead of the relevant assessment year (2006–07). The Court, comprising Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, held that the Tribunal overstepped its jurisdiction by substituting the Departmental Promotion Committee’s (DPC) assessment criteria and granting relief beyond the pleadings.

The Court emphatically reiterated that “there is a right to be considered for promotion, not a vested right to promotion itself”, and held that the denial of promotion based on an ACR graded merely “Good” was legally sustainable.

The case arose from the grievance of Narendra Kumar Jain, a 1976-batch IRS officer serving as Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, who was denied promotion to the post of CCIT for the year 2008–09. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 18.11.2008 found him “unfit” based on a “Good” rating in his ACR for 2006–07, which fell below the prescribed benchmark of “Very Good”.

Upon challenge, the Tribunal directed that the ACR be communicated to the respondent and allowed him to file a representation. Although the representation was considered and reviewed, the Review DPC reaffirmed its “Unfit” verdict. Jain again approached the Tribunal, which then directed the authorities to reconsider his promotion based on an entirely different ACR—of 2001–02.

The Union of India challenged this direction, asserting that the Tribunal’s substitution of assessment criteria was “legally unsustainable and administratively impermissible.”

After a meticulous analysis, the Division Bench held: “Promotion must be governed strictly in accordance with service rules and established benchmarks. The ACRs of the five preceding years alone are to be considered. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct consideration of an ACR beyond the prescribed timeframe.”

Quoting the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725, the Court observed: “Every entry in the ACR of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reasonable period… non-communication of such an entry is arbitrary and violates Article 14.”

The Court acknowledged that though the ACR for 2006–07 was initially uncommunicated, this irregularity was later cured by communication and representation, and therefore could not invalidate the final assessment by the Review DPC. It held:

“The respondent was considered not ineligible, but unsuitable on merit—after due process. This distinction is vital, and cannot be glossed over in service jurisprudence.”

On Tribunal Overreach:

The High Court took strong exception to the Tribunal’s direction that the authorities consider the ACR of 2001–02 (well beyond the relevant assessment period) for promotion evaluation:

“The Tribunal cannot create eligibility criteria where none exist. Its role is to ensure compliance with law—not to rewrite or replace it.”

Referring to Government of West Bengal v. Dr. Amal Satpathi, SLP (Civil) No. 10245 of 2024, the Court reaffirmed: “Promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, not from the date a vacancy arises… the right to be considered does not transform into a right to be promoted.”

On Discrimination Argument:

The respondent had also alleged discriminatory treatment, citing the case of Sudhir Chandra, a similarly placed officer granted relief by the CAT, Chennai Bench. The Court rejected this argument, stating:

“Every case must stand on its own facts. The ACR of Sudhir Chandra pertained only to a four-month period and was considered an exception. No such mitigating factor exists here.”

The Court also clarified that even though the respondent's representation was noted as meeting the benchmark, no formal upgrading of the ACR to “Very Good” was recorded, thus sustaining the DPC's finding.

On Eligibility vs. Suitability:

The Court made an important doctrinal clarification: “Eligibility pertains to the fulfilment of statutory criteria; suitability involves a holistic assessment of the officer’s merit. A person may be eligible but still be found unsuitable.”

In this case, the respondent met the eligibility criteria but was not found suitable, due to his ACR not meeting the benchmark for one of the five crucial years.

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India, setting aside the CAT’s direction to reconsider promotion based on an unrelated ACR. The Court concluded:

“Promotion is not a matter of right, and the respondent’s claim—though framed as a challenge to procedure—ultimately sought to override the merits-based conclusion of the Review DPC.”

By reinforcing that administrative discretion must be respected where exercised lawfully, and that judicial review cannot reconfigure statutory promotion rules, the judgment underscores judicial restraint in service matters.

Date of Decision: 3rd June 2025