Injustice Remedied: High Court Directs Review of Upgraded ACRs for Promotion, Upholding Equality Under Article 14
The High Court of Delhi, in a landmark judgment delivered by Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Saurabh Banerjee, has quashed the order dated February 12, 2015, regarding the non-restoration of seniority of Guriqbal Singh, a petitioner challenging the order of HQ DG, BSF. The High Court directed the respondents to review the petitioner’s promotion case in light of upgraded ACRs, reiterating the constitutional principle of equality under Article 14.
Legal Context and Petitioner’s Plight:
Guriqbal Singh’s legal battle began upon discovering that his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 2005-06 & 2007-08 were marked below the benchmark, leading to his exclusion from the promotion list. Despite later upgrades on these ACRs, the BSF order dated February 12, 2015, denied retrospective promotion, citing DoP&T’s OM dated April 13, 2010, as applicable only to future DPCs.
Court’s Detailed Assessment:
ACR Upgradation and Promotion Review:
The Court noted that Singh’s upgraded ACRs merited a review by the DPC. Justice Rao observed, “Having communicated the same, if they have been upgraded, then the upgraded ACRs need to be considered by convening a Review DPC.”
Principle from Dev Dutt v. UOI Cited:
Singh’s case was bolstered by the precedent set in Dev Dutt v. UOI, underscoring that an employee should not suffer due to non-communication of below benchmark ACRs.
Comparative Analysis with Similarly Situated Officer:
The bench highlighted discriminatory treatment against Singh compared to another officer, Lala Krishan Kumar Lal, who received retrospective seniority under similar circumstances.
Rejection of Respondents’ Stand:
The Court found the respondents’ reliance on the DoP&T OM for future DPCs only, to be “not convincing/appealing,” and their differential treatment discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judgment and Directions:
The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to undertake a promotional exercise within eight weeks, considering Singh’s upgraded ACRs from 2005-06 and 2007-08. If found fit, his promotion should relate back to the date his junior was promoted, with actual and consequential benefits.
Date of Decision: April 2, 2024
Guriqbal Singh v. Union of India & Anr,
