Supreme Court Quashes DPC for Assistant Registrar Post: R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 164

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) consider an employee’s Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for promotion if it was not communicated to them? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar at the High Court of Manipur. The Court ruled that uncommunicated ACRs, and those communicated just before the DPC meeting, cannot be used for promotion decisions. This judgment emphasizes the importance of transparency and fairness in promotion processes. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The petitioner, R.K. Jibanlata Devi, began her service as a Lower Division Assistant at the Gauhati High Court in 1991. She was promoted to Upper Division Assistant in 1993 and then to Superintendent in 2012. In 2013, the High Court of Manipur was established, separating from the Gauhati High Court. Initially, the service conditions of the staff at the Manipur High Court were governed by the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967. A vacancy for the post of Assistant Registrar arose on February 1, 2019, and by August 2020, there were four such vacancies. The petitioner, being the seniormost Superintendent, believed she was entitled to promotion based on seniority-cum-merit, as per the 1967 Rules. However, the High Court of Manipur framed its own rules in 2020. A DPC was held on April 9, 2021, to fill six Assistant Registrar posts. The DPC considered ACRs from 2016 onwards, as per the 2020 Rules. The petitioner was not recommended for promotion, leading her to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around two sets of service rules:

• Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967: These rules were initially applicable to the High Court of Manipur until the 2020 Rules were framed. Under these rules, promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar was based on seniority-cum-merit, and the last five years of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) were considered.
• High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020: These rules were framed by the High Court of Manipur and came into force in December 2020. As per these rules, the last four years of ACRs are considered for promotion. Schedule III of the Rules, 2020, specifies that the assessment for promotion includes 80 marks for ACR weightage and 20 marks for viva voce/interview.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions, particularly regarding the communication of ACRs to employees.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that since the vacancy for Assistant Registrar arose in 2019, the 1967 Rules should apply. These rules stipulated promotion based on seniority-cum-merit.
• The petitioner contended that the DPC should have considered the rules prevalent at the time the vacancies arose, i.e., the 1967 Rules, which required consideration of the last five years’ ACRs.
• The petitioner argued that the 2020 Rules, which consider only the last four years’ ACRs, should not have been applied retroactively.
• The petitioner highlighted that her ACR for 2016-17, with a “Good” grading, was never communicated to her.
• The petitioner also pointed out that her ACR for 2019-20, also with a “Good” grading, was communicated to her on April 8, 2021, just one day before the DPC meeting, and she was given 15 days to make a representation.
• The petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566], Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC [(2015) 14 SCC 427] and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India [(2018) 18 SCC 640], stating that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.

Respondent’s Arguments (High Court and Promoted Candidates):

• The High Court argued that the 2020 Rules were correctly applied as they were in force when the DPC met on April 9, 2021.
• The High Court contended that the ACRs for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were communicated to the petitioner and others on April 8, 2021, and that this did not deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to submit a representation within 15 days.
• The High Court argued that the interviews for the Assistant Registrar posts were conducted independently of the ACR gradings.
• The respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar [2022 SCC OnLine SC 868], stating that vacancies need not be filled based on the rules existing when they arose.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was correct in considering the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2016-17 and 2019-2020 for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566] – The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC [(2015) 14 SCC 427] – The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India [(2018) 18 SCC 640] – The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse ACRs, even those with “Good” entries, should not be considered for promotion.
• Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, [(2008) 8 SCC 725] – The Supreme Court held that uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion.
• State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar [2022 SCC OnLine SC 868] – The Supreme Court held that there is no rule of universal application that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of rules which existed on the date when they arose.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020: These rules govern the service conditions of employees of the High Court of Manipur.
• Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967: These rules were initially applicable to the High Court of Manipur before the 2020 Rules were framed.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the DPC proceedings dated April 9, 2021. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, ignoring the uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17 and the ACR for the year 2019-2020. The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s case should be considered based on the ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, where she had received “Very Good” gradings.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 9 SCC 566]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC [(2015) 14 SCC 427]*: The Court followed this authority, reiterating the principle that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India [(2018) 18 SCC 640]*: The Court followed this authority, holding that uncommunicated adverse ACRs, even those with “Good” entries, should not be considered for promotion.
• Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, [(2008) 8 SCC 725]*: The Court followed this authority, holding that uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion.
• State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar [2022 SCC OnLine SC 868]*: The Court distinguished this authority, stating that it did not apply to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions. The Court emphasized that uncommunicated ACRs and ACRs communicated just before the DPC meeting should not be considered for promotion. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that employees have a fair opportunity to address any adverse remarks in their ACRs before they are used for promotion decisions. The Court’s decision also highlighted the importance of transparency in the promotion process.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents (70%) than by the specific facts of the case (30%).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the interviews were independent of the ACR gradings, noting that the ACR weightage was 80 marks out of 100. The Court also rejected the argument that the petitioner had an opportunity to submit a representation, stating that the petitioner was entitled to 15 days to make a representation and that the DPC should have either been postponed or the ACR for 2019-2020 should not have been considered.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Therefore, uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17 having the grading “Good” could not have been relied upon for consideration for promotion.”

“The fact remains that the petitioner was having 15 days’ time from 08.04.2021 to make a representation. Therefore, either the DPC could have been postponed or the ACR for the year 2019-2020 ought not to have been considered and the same ought to have been treated as uncommunicated ACR.”

“Thus, according to the High Court, the grading in the ACRs and information with respect to such grading was not provided and/or made available to the Hon’ble Judges conducting the interviews. The aforesaid is absolutely erroneous.”

Key Takeaways

• Uncommunicated ACRs, even those with “Good” entries, cannot be considered for promotion.
• ACRs communicated just before a DPC meeting, without sufficient time for representation, should not be considered.
• Promotion processes must be fair and transparent, ensuring that employees have an opportunity to address any adverse remarks in their ACRs.
• The Supreme Court emphasized that ACRs carry significant weight in promotion decisions, and they must be given due consideration.

Potential Future Impact:

• This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness in promotion processes across all government and public sector organizations.
• It sets a precedent for ensuring that employees are given adequate time to respond to their ACRs before they are used for promotion decisions.
• It may lead to revisions in promotion guidelines to ensure that ACRs are communicated to employees well in advance of DPC meetings.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The DPC proceedings dated April 9, 2021, denying the promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar, were quashed and set aside.
• The case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on April 9, 2021, was directed to be considered afresh, ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20.
• The DPC/competent authority was directed to take a fresh decision in accordance with the law, taking into consideration the ACRs of the remaining years, i.e., 2017-18 and 2018-19.
• The exercise was directed to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.
• If the petitioner is promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar after the fresh exercise, she shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, including arrears and seniority, from April 9, 2021.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), and those communicated just before a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting without sufficient time for representation, cannot be considered for promotion. This decision reinforces the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions. The Supreme Court did not change the previous position of law but reiterated the already existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur emphasizes the importance of fairness and transparency in promotion processes. The Court held that uncommunicated ACRs and ACRs communicated just before a DPC meeting cannot be considered for promotion. This decision ensures that employees are given a fair opportunity to address any adverse remarks in their ACRs before they are used for promotion decisions. The Court quashed the DPC proceedings and directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotion, based on the ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19.