Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court

Supreme Court Orders Fresh Consideration for Promotion, Excluding Uncommunicated ACRs

04 September 2024 9:50 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has ordered a fresh consideration for the promotion of R.K. Jibanlata Devi to the post of Assistant Registrar, setting aside the previous Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) decision. The judgment, delivered on February 24, 2023, by Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, emphasized the exclusion of uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and highlighted the importance of fair assessment in promotion processes.

The Court, acknowledging the petitioner's claim for promotion based on seniority-cum-merit, directed a fresh assessment while disregarding the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20. It emphasized that uncommunicated ACRs, even with a "Good" grading, cannot be relied upon for promotion considerations. Furthermore, the Court noted that the ACR grading for the year 2019-20, communicated to the petitioner just one day before the DPC meeting, should not have been considered since the petitioner was granted a 15-day period to make representations.

The judgment highlighted the need for fair and transparent assessment in promotion procedures. It clarified that the ACR weightage, accounting for 80 marks out of 100, should have been given due consideration during the interviews conducted by the Hon'ble Judges. The Court emphasized that the gradings in the ACRs and relevant information should have been made available to the interviewing Judges to ensure a fair evaluation.

In light of the ruling, the High Court of Manipur is required to undertake a fresh evaluation, taking into account the ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Court directed the competent authority to complete the fresh consideration within six weeks from the date of the judgment. If the petitioner is promoted as a result, she will be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears and seniority, effective from the date of the promotion of her juniors.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of effective communication of ACRs and fair assessment practices in the promotion of employees. It reinforces the principle of equal opportunity and highlights the need for transparent procedures to ensure justice in the workplace.

Date of Decision: February 24, 2023

R.K. Jibanlata Devi  VS High Court of Manipur through its Registrar General and others

Latest Legal News