Supreme Court sets aside DPC for Assistant Registrar post due to uncommunicated ACRs: R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur (24 February 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) can be considered for promotion.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur

Judgment Date: 24 February 2023

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 128

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

Can a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) consider uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) when deciding on promotions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar at the High Court of Manipur. This judgment clarifies the importance of communicating ACRs to employees before they are used for promotion decisions, ensuring fairness and transparency in the process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar.

Case Background

The petitioner, R.K. Jibanlata Devi, initially joined the Gauhati High Court as a Lower Division Assistant 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. Until the High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 2020’) were framed, the Manipur High Court followed the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules 1967’). The next promotion for a Superintendent was to the post of Assistant Registrar. A vacancy for Assistant Registrar arose on 1 February 2019, and by August 2020, there were four vacant posts. The petitioner, being the seniormost Superintendent, believed she was entitled to promotion based on seniority-cum-merit under the Rules 1967. However, the High Court of Manipur framed its own Rules, 2020. A DPC was held on 9 April 2021, for six posts of Assistant Registrar, including the 2019 vacancy and the posts that arose in August 2020. The DPC considered ACRs from 2016 onwards, as per the Rules 2020. The petitioner was not recommended for promotion, leading her to file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Two of the three judges of the Manipur High Court, including the Chief Justice, were members of the DPC, and the Chief Justice had reviewed the ACRs. This created a conflict of interest, necessitating the petition to be filed before the Supreme Court under the rule of necessity.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967 and the High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020. The Rules 1967 governed promotions before the establishment of the Manipur High Court, stipulating that promotions to the post of Assistant Registrar were based on seniority-cum-merit, with consideration of the last five years of ACRs. The Rules 2020, framed by the Manipur High Court, changed the criteria to consider the last four years of ACRs. The Supreme Court also considered the principles established in previous judgments regarding the necessity of communicating ACRs to employees before they are used for promotion decisions.

The relevant provisions of law include:

• The Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967, which were applicable to the High Court of Manipur before the framing of the Rules, 2020.
• The High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control, Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020.
• Article 32 of the Constitution of India, under which the writ petition was filed.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that since the post of Assistant Registrar fell vacant on 1 February 2019, and in August 2020, the Rules 1967, which were in force at the time, should apply. The Rules 2020 came into force in December 2020.
• Under the Rules 1967, promotion was based on seniority-cum-merit, and the petitioner, being the seniormost Superintendent, should have been promoted.
• The Rules 1967 required consideration of the last five years of ACRs, while the Rules 2020 considered only the last four years.
• The DPC should have considered the year-wise vacancy and conducted the promotion process for the 2019 vacancy in 2019 itself, applying the Rules 1967.
• Applying the Rules 2020 increased the number of eligible candidates, adversely affecting the petitioner’s chances of promotion.
• The ACR for 2016-17, with a “Good” grading, was not communicated to the petitioner and should not have been considered.
• The ACR for 2019-20, also with a “Good” grading, was communicated on 8 April 2021, giving the petitioner 15 days to make a representation. However, the DPC met on 9 April 2021, before the 15-day period ended.

The petitioner relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, [(2013) 9 SCC 566], Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC, [(2015) 14 SCC 427] and Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and others, [(2018) 18 SCC 640], to argue that uncommunicated ACRs and those communicated with insufficient time for representation should not be considered.

Respondents’ Arguments (High Court and Promoted Candidates):

• The High Court argued that the Rules 2020 were correctly applied as they were in force when the DPC met on 9 April 2021.
• The ACR gradings for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 were communicated to the petitioner on 8 April 2021, and the petitioner had the opportunity to submit a representation within 15 days.
• Other candidates submitted their representations on 9 April 2021, and the petitioner could have done the same.
• The promotion orders were issued on 28 April 2021, allowing time for representations.
• The interviews were conducted by two judges who were not aware of the ACR gradings, ensuring impartiality.
• The High Court was not obligated to fill the vacancies immediately upon their occurrence.

The respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680], to argue that vacancies need not be filled based on the rules existing when they arose.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issues that the court addressed were:

1. Whether the DPC was correct in applying the Rules 2020 for promotions to the post of Assistant Registrar.
2. Whether the DPC was correct in considering the uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17.
3. Whether the DPC was correct in considering the ACR for the year 2019-2020, which was communicated to the petitioner just one day before the DPC meeting.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, [(2013) 9 SCC 566], Supreme Court of India: This case established the principle that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Prabhu Dayal Khandelwal v. Chairman, UPSC, [(2015) 14 SCC 427], Supreme Court of India: This case further reinforced the principle that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and others, [(2018) 18 SCC 640], Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the importance of communicating ACRs to employees before they are used for promotion decisions.
• Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, [(2008) 8 SCC 725], Supreme Court of India: This case also emphasizes that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680], Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it does not apply to the present facts. This case 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:

• The Gauhati High Court Service Rules, 1967: These rules governed promotions before the establishment of the Manipur High Court.
• The 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 Manipur High Court and were in force when the DPC met.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the petition, setting aside the DPC proceedings of 9 April 2021, which denied promotion to the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar, ignoring the uncommunicated ACR for 2016-17 and the ACR for 2019-20, which was communicated just one day before the DPC meeting. The Court emphasized that the ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, in which the petitioner had “Very Good” gradings, should be considered. The Court also directed that if the petitioner is promoted, she shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including arrears and seniority, from 9 April 2021.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Others, [(2013) 9 SCC 566]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate 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 to further reinforce that uncommunicated adverse ACRs should not be considered for promotion.
• Rukhsana Shaheen Khan v. Union of India and others, [(2018) 18 SCC 640]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate the importance of communicating ACRs to employees before they are used for promotion decisions.
• Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Ors, [(2008) 8 SCC 725]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate the importance of communicating ACRs before using them for promotion decisions.
• State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Raj Kumar, [2022 SCC OnLine SC 680]*: The Court distinguished this authority, stating that it does not apply to the present facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of fairness and transparency in promotion processes. The Court emphasized the importance of communicating ACRs to employees, particularly when those ACRs are used for promotion decisions. The Court found that the DPC erred in considering the uncommunicated ACR for 2016-17 and the ACR for 2019-20, which was communicated just one day before the DPC meeting. The Court also noted that the High Court’s claim that the judges conducting the interviews were not aware of the ACR gradings was erroneous, as the ACR weightage was a significant part of the assessment.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The Rules 2020 were applicable as they were in force when the DPC met.
• Uncommunicated adverse ACRs, even with “Good” grading, cannot be relied upon for promotion.
• ACRs communicated just before the DPC meeting, without sufficient time for representation, should not be considered.
• The High Court’s claim that the judges were unaware of ACR gradings was erroneous.

The Supreme Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached by applying the established principles of service law and ensuring fairness and transparency in the promotion process.

The Court stated:

• “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.”
• “In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021 is required to be considered afresh ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20…”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The judgment has potential implications for future cases involving promotions and the consideration of ACRs. It reinforces the principle that uncommunicated ACRs cannot be considered for promotion and that sufficient time must be given to employees to make a representation against their ACRs. This decision ensures that promotion processes are fair and transparent and that employees are not prejudiced by the non-communication of their ACRs.

Key Takeaways

• Uncommunicated ACRs, even with “Good” grading, cannot be considered for promotion.
• Sufficient time must be given to employees to make a representation against their ACRs before they are used for promotion decisions.
• Promotion processes must be fair and transparent.
• The DPC must consider all relevant factors, including ACRs, when making promotion decisions.

This judgment will likely impact future cases involving promotions, particularly in cases where ACRs are a significant factor in the decision-making process. It emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and transparency in administrative decisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that uncommunicated ACRs, even with “Good” grading, cannot be considered for promotion, and sufficient time must be given to employees to make a representation against their ACRs. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the importance of communicating ACRs in promotion processes and does not introduce a new legal principle but emphasizes the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in R.K. Jibanlata Devi vs. High Court of Manipur sets aside the DPC proceedings that denied promotion to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that uncommunicated ACRs and those communicated without sufficient time for representation cannot be considered for promotion. This decision underscores the importance of fairness and transparency in promotion processes and ensures that employees are not prejudiced by the non-communication of their ACRs. The High Court was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s case, taking into account the ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19, and to complete the exercise within six weeks.