Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Gulab Singh vs U O I And Anr (2026:Rj-Jp:10810) on 16 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10810]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10303/2013
Gulab Singh Son of Shri Amar Singh, aged about 60 years,
Resident of 120-Rajendra Path, 21 South Colony, Niwaroo Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). At present working as Inspector at C.S.C
Reserve Company, North Western Railway, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India, through Director General, Railway Protection
Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force North
Western Railway Head Quarter, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Balwada, Adv.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18/02/2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 18/02/2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative
part is pronounced Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 16/03/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the respondents’ decision
not to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Security
Commissioner/Assistant Commandant in Group ‘A’ Junior Scale,
and also to seek quashing of the Annual Confidential Reports
(‘ACRs’) for the year 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a Sub-
Inspector in the Railway Protection Force on 01.04.1978 and was
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (2 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]
subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1994.
As per the seniority list dated 30.03.2006, the petitioner was
placed at Serial No. 538, whereas Shri Anil Bhalerao, who was
junior to the petitioner and placed at Serial No. 539, came to be
promoted.
3. The petitioner’s grievance stems from the promotion order
dated 10.08.2011 which promoted 31 Inspectors to the position of
Assistant Security Commissioner/Assistant Commandant (Group
‘A’ Junior Scale), despite the petitioner being senior and otherwise
eligible for promotion.
4. The ACRs for the years 2005 to 2008 were communicated to
the petitioner only in January, 2011 and the same were relied
upon by the respondents while denying promotion to the
petitioner. The petitioner contends that in the relevant column of
the said ACRs he was recorded as ‘fit for promotion’. It is further
urged that certain adverse remarks, particularly for the year 2007,
were unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner was not assigned
duties relating to crime control during the said period.
5. The petitioner submitted a representation challenging the
impugned ACRs as well as the denial of promotion. It is further
contended that the action of the respondents in promoting officers
junior to the petitioner, while overlooking his candidature, is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the present
writ petition, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation
and retired from service on 30.06.2013.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (3 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was fully eligible for promotion at the relevant time and
that his seniority position has not been disputed. It is further
contended that despite petitioner being senior, his juniors were
promoted vide order dated 10.08.2011 without considering his
candidature, which is arbitrary and violative of the equality clause
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. It is also submitted that the ACRs were communicated to the
petitioner belatedly in the year 2011 and the same were relied
upon as a basis to deny him promotion, which is impermissible in
law and the remarks recorded in the said ACRs were unjustified
and that the petitioner was otherwise found suitable for
promotion.
8. Furthermore, it is argued that denial of promotion on the
basis of such ACRs, coupled with the promotion of officers junior
to the petitioner, infringes the constitutional guarantee of equality
as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is,
therefore, prayed that the impugned action be set aside and
petitioner be promoted to the Post of Assistant Security
Commissioner/Assistant Commandant in Group ‘A’ Junior Scale
with all consequential benefits.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the promotion procedure is governed by the RPF Officers
Recruitment Rules, 1994 read with the Department of Personnel
and Training’s letter No. 22011/5/91/Estt.(D) dated 27.03.1997
and that the petitioner’s ACRs for the years 2006 to 2008 were
graded as ‘Average’, which was below the prescribed benchmark
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (4 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]
for promotion to Group ‘A’ Junior Scale. It is further submitted that
promotions were made on the basis of eligibility, seniority and
fulfillment of the benchmark criteria, which the petitioner failed to
satisfy.
10. It is also submitted that the ACRs for the relevant years were
communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the Railway
Board’s instructions dated 04.01.2011 and the petitioner
acknowledged receipt of the same on 13.01.2011. The
representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered
and disposed of by the competent authority.
11. Additionally, it is pointed out that the petitioner retired from
service on 30.06.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation
and has already been granted financial upgradations under the
applicable schemes. Therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness can be
attributed to the action of the respondents and the present writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
13. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds
no ground to interfere with the action of the respondents for the
following reasons:
14. Firstly, the ACRs for the years 2006 to 2008, which were
communicated to the petitioner, record his grading as ‘Average’,
and the representation submitted by the petitioner challenging the
said ACRs have already been considered and rejected by the
competent authority.
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (5 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]
15. Secondly, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not
sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions with
regard to petitioners representation challenging his ACR’s.
16. Thirdly, the law is equally settled that in the absence of any
specific allegation of mala fides against the officer who recorded
the entries in the ACRs, the Court would ordinarily refrain from
interfering with such administrative assessments. In the present
case, the petitioner has failed to attribute any specific mala fides
to the concerned officials.
17. Moreso, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Amrik
Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 10 SCC 424, delineated upon
the scope of interference in the administrative matters, has held
as under:-
“14. The scope of judicial review in such matters
of assessment of merit for purpose of promotion
has been dealt with by this Court recently in the case of
Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan
[(2000) 6 SCC 698: 2000 SCC (L&S) 797 : (2000) 5
Scale 327]
15. In para 29 of the said judgment, this Court stated
as follows: (SCC pp. 714-15)“29. The contention put forth before us is that
there are factual inaccuracies in the statement
recorded by the Cabinet Secretary in his note
and, therefore, must be deemed to be vitiated
so as to reach a conclusion that the decision of
the Government in this regard is not based on
proper material. The learned Attorney-General,
therefore, took great pains to bring the entire
records relating to the relevant period which
were considered by the Cabinet Secretary and
sought to point out that there were notings
available on those files which justify these
remarks. Prima facie, we cannot say, having
gone through those records, that these notings
are baseless. Critical analysis or appraisal(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (6 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]of the file by the Court may neither be
conducive to the interests of the officers
concerned or for the morale of the entire
force. Maybe one may emphasize one
aspect rather than the other but in the
appraisal of the total profile, the entire
service profile has been taken care of by
the authorities concerned and we cannot
substitute our view to that of the
authorities. It is a well-known principle of
administrative law that when relevant
considerations have been taken note of and
irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from
consideration and that no relevant aspect has
been ignored and the administrative decisions
have nexus with the facts on record, the same
cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review
is permissible only to the extent of finding
whether the process in reaching decision
has been observed correctly and not the
decision as such. In that view of the
matter, we think there is no justification
for the High Court to have interfered with
the order made by the Government.”
21. In the result, we are not inclined to grant any relief
to the appellant in spite of the fact that his
performance in the subsequent years has been shown
to be very good and his ratings were very high.
Ultimately the single adverse remark of 1985-86 by the
Reviewing Officer had stood in his way, not only at the
time of original consideration but also when the matter
was considered afresh pursuant to the directions of the
High Court. The result may be unfortunate. But the
scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court being
very limited, we cannot go into the correctness of
the adverse remarks, nor into the assessment
made by the Selection Board on the two
occasions.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent material on record
to contradict the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did
not meet the eligibility requirements for promotion i.e., grading of
‘Good’ in terms of RPF Officers Recruitment Rules, 1994 read with
DOPTs letter No. 22011/5/91/Estt.(D) dated 27.03.1997, this
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10810] (7 of 7) [CW-10303/2013]
Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the
administrative decision taken by the respondents.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present writ petition
being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
20. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-2 Supplementary
(Uploaded on 16/03/2026 at 06:30:40 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/03/2026 at 08:55:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)