Summary
An ITS Group A officer on deputation to BSNL was rated 'Very Good' in 2005-06 and 2006-07 but only 'Good' in 2007-08 by the same reporting and reviewing officers, which cost him non-functional upgradation to the Senior Administrative Grade. He was allowed to represent against the grade under the 2009 and 2010 DoPT memoranda, but the representation was rejected without reasons. The Tribunal, upheld by the Rajasthan High Court, ordered reassessment excluding the 2007-08 ACR. Dismissing the Union's appeal, the Supreme Court applied Dev Dutt: entries must be communicated and representations decided fairly. The 2007-08 remarks were sweeping, contradicted the same officers' earlier views, came without warning, and were upheld without valid reasons, so the direction stood.
Issues
- Whether the Screening Committee could rely on a below-benchmark ACR for 2007-08 that sharply contradicted the 'Very Good' assessments the same reporting and reviewing officers had given in the two preceding years.
- Whether giving an opportunity to represent under the DoPT memoranda of 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010 cured the defect, when the representation was rejected without valid reasons.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaFairness and non-arbitrariness require every ACR entry to be communicated within a reasonable time, and the representation against it to be decided fairly by a higher authority (Dev Dutt). (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
- Communication of APAR entries and below-benchmark grades before 2008-09, DoPT Office Memoranda dated 14.05.2009 and 13.04.2010A below-benchmark ACR for a period before 2008-09 must be supplied before the DPC for representation, and the representation must be decided objectively and with reasons. Communication alone does not validate an arbitrary grade rejected without reasons. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3, 10)
Held
- Grades may properly vary from year to year, but the 2007-08 remarks were sweeping and the exact opposite of the same authorities' assessment of the same personal attributes in the previous two years. No deficiency was pointed out to the officer during the year. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 9)
- Although the officer was given an opportunity to represent under the 2010 memorandum, no valid reasons were given for rejecting his representation. The Tribunal rightly found the assessment arbitrary and inconsistent. (¶¶ 7, 8.1, 10)
- In those circumstances, the direction to convene a review Screening Committee and reassess the officer's suitability for SAG excluding the 2007-08 ACR called for no interference. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The Tribunal's direction, upheld by the High Court, to hold a review Screening Committee meeting and reassess the respondent's suitability for SAG excluding the 2007-08 ACR was affirmed.