Summary
A Superintendent in the Manipur High Court was passed over for promotion to Assistant Registrar by a Departmental Promotion Committee held on 9 April 2021 under the High Court's 2020 Rules, which weigh the last four years' ACRs at 80 of 100 marks; her 'Good' grading for 2016-17 had never been communicated and that for 2019-20 was communicated only the day before the DPC with fifteen days to represent. The Supreme Court held that the 2020 Rules in force when the DPC met were rightly applied, but that under Dev Dutt, Sukhdev Singh and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan an uncommunicated ACR, even one graded 'Good', cannot be relied on for promotion, and an ACR communicated a day before the DPC must be treated alike; her case is to be reconsidered on the remaining 'Very Good' ACRs within six weeks, with consequential benefits from 9 April 2021 if promoted.
Issues
- Whether a Departmental Promotion Committee could rely on an ACR grading that was never communicated to the employee, and on one communicated a day before the DPC met while the time for representation was still running.
- Whether promotion to posts that fell vacant before the High Court of Manipur's 2020 Rules came into force had to be made under the earlier Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967.
Provisions considered
- Schedule III, Serial Nos. 12 and 13, High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020Assessment for promotion to Superintendent and above carries 80 marks for ACRs and 20 for viva voce, seniority counting only where merit is equal, and the preceding four years' ACRs are considered; since the DPC met on 09.04.2021 after these Rules came into force, they, and not the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967, governed the exercise. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3)
Held
- The 'Good' grading for 2016-17 was admittedly never communicated until the DPC met, and under Dev Dutt, Sukhdev Singh and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan an uncommunicated entry that is adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion, even if graded 'Good', cannot be relied upon. (¶ 6.4)
- The 2019-20 grading was communicated on 08.04.2021 with fifteen days to represent, yet the DPC met the next day; that other candidates represented on 09.04.2021 is neither here nor there, and the DPC should either have been postponed or treated that ACR as uncommunicated. The High Court's assertion that ACR gradings were not placed before the interviewing Judges is erroneous given that ACRs carry 80 of 100 marks. (¶¶ 6.5, 6.7, 6.8)
Result
Writ petition allowed without costs; DPC proceedings dated 09.04.2021 denying the petitioner promotion to Assistant Registrar quashed; her case to be considered afresh as on 09.04.2021 ignoring the ACRs for 2016-17 and 2019-20 and on the basis of the ACRs for 2017-18 and 2018-19, within six weeks; if promoted, she is entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears and seniority from 09.04.2021.