Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Union Of India vs Noor Ahmed S/O Shri Noor Mohd on 17 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8277/2022
1. Union of India, through Chairman, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi (India).
2. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Snachar Bhawan, Saradar Patel Marg, Ahinsa Circle, C-
Scheme, Jaipur (Raj).
3. General Manager, Telecom District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., Near ASI Hospital, Jhalawar Road, Kota (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
Noor Ahmed S/o Shri Noor Mohd., Aged About 67 Years,
Resident of Plot No. 02, Behind Akashwani Colony, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma with
Mr. Vaibhav Jhankra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori through
VC
Mr. Santosh Chaudhary
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 29.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 29.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 17.02.2026
Per Hon’ble Ravi Chirania, J.
1. The instant writ petition filed by the Union of India through
the Chairman – BSNL against the judgment and order dated
03.12.2021 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (2 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No.102/2013, whereby,
the O.A. filed by the respondent-applicant (hereinafter referred to
as ‘respondent’ for short) was allowed.
2. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent – Noor
Ahmed had filed an O.A. before the learned Tribunal with the
following prayer:-
“i) That the illegal order dated 28.12.2011 may
kindly be quashed and set aside and direction
may be issued to respondent to correct the
ACR’s of 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 as per the
guidelines issued by the DOPT.
ii) That the respondents may be directed to
hold review DPC in respect of applicant and
consider his case for upgradation/promotion on
the post of Senior SDE by ignoring the entries
entered by the reviewing authority as the same
is in violation of guidelines issued by the DOPT
and BSNL.
iii) That the pay of the applicant may kindly be
fixed in the scale of Senior SDE w.e.f from the
date when other persons were given promotion
and accordingly revised the pension and
payment of arrears also.
(iv) That any other beneficial orders directions
which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case be kindly passed in favour of the
applicant.
(iii) Costs be quantified in favour of the
applicant.”
3. Learned Counsel further submitted that the case as set up by
the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that he was
eligible and entitled to promotion from the post of Sub Divisional
Engineer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SDE’ for short) to Senior
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (3 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
SDE. However, he was not considered for promotion. Learned
counsel further submitted that the respondent stated in his O.A.
that he had a good service record as reflected in his ACRs for the
respective years, yet he was denied consideration for promotion to
the aforesaid post on the basis of the uncommunicated ACRs for
the respective period. It was further submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioners that the respondent filed the O.A. in the year
2013, whereas, he had already retired from the services of the
petitioners on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2005.
Thus, after a lapse of about 7-8 years from the date of his
retirement, he filed the instant O.A., stating that his case was
finally considered in the DPC, held on 27.11.2009 against the
previous year’s vacancy, and wherein he was denied promotion on
the ground that, out of 5 years’ required ACRs, he was having
more than two ACRs as “Average”, and was, therefore not found
fit for promotion as per Rules.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the
respondent was properly considered by the humble petitioners. As
the respondent was not having the required ACRs, he was rightly
not considered for the said promotion. Learned counsel further
submitted that though the respondent retired in the year 2005, he
chose to file the O.A. in the year 2013, seeking promotion
pertaining to the vacancy years when he was in service and the
meeting of DPCs were conducted against the available yearwise
vacancies. The learned Tribunal, considering the facts, as pleaded
by the respondent, allowed the O.A. by applying the law that ‘a
person cannot be denied for promotion on the basis of
uncommunicated adverse or below benchmark ACR’. The
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (4 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
learned Tribunal erroneously observed that though the judgment
and the office memorandum cannot be applied retrospectively still
the action of the humble petitioners of denying the promotion on
the basis of uncommunicated adverse ACRs was held to be not in
accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Tribunal allowed the
O.A. with the direction to the petitioners to grant promotion by
applying the policy of 2007 w.e.f. from the date the respondent
became eligible, after holding the DPC.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the findings recorded
by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 03.12.2021
are perverse, as the learned Tribunal ignored the settled law and
failed to properly appreciate the Office Memorandum as issued
pertaining to the issue involved in the present case. Learned
counsel further submitted that the humble petitioners themselves
issued an Office Memorandum dated 18.01.2007, wherein a policy
decision was taken to ensure timely promotion to the officials.
Learned counsel further submitted that as far as non-
communication of the adverse ACRs is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of ‘Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India’
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725, issued the following directions,
which are reproduced here as under:-
“13. It has been held in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness
violates Article 14 of the Constitution. In our opinion,
the non-communication of an entry in the A.C.R. of a
public servant is arbitrary because it deprives the
concerned employee from making a representation
against it and praying for its up-gradation. In our
opinion, every entry in the Annual Confidential Report
of every employee under the State, whether he is in
civil, judicial, police or other service (except the(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (5 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]military) must be communicated to him, so as to
enable him to make a representation against it,
because non-communication deprives the employee
of the opportunity of making a representation against
it which may affect his chances of being promoted (or
get some other benefits). Moreover, the object of
writing the confidential report and making entries in
them is to give an opportunity to a public servant to
improve his performance, vide State of U.P. vs.
Yamuna Shankar Misra 1997 (4) SCC.
7. Hence such non-communication is, in our opinion,
arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
14. In our opinion, every entry (and not merely a
poor or adverse entry) relating to an employee under
the State or an instrumentality of the State, whether
in civil, judicial, police or other service (except the
military) must be communicated to him, within a
reasonable period, and it makes no difference
whether there is a bench mark or not. Even if there is
no bench mark, non-communication of an entry may
adversely affect the employee’s chances of promotion
(or getting some other benefit), because when
comparative merit is being considered for promotion
(or some other benefit) a person having a `good’ or
`average’ or `fair’ entry certainly has less chances of
being selected than a person having a `very good’ or
`outstanding’ entry.
19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a
public servant must be communicated to him within a
reasonable period, whether it is a poor, fair, average,
good or very good entry. This is because non-
communication of such an entry may adversely affect
the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been
communicated to him he would know about the
assessment of his work and conduct by his superiors,
which would enable him to improve his work in future
(2) He would have an opportunity of making a
representation against the entry if he feels it is
unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-
communication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has
been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra)
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (6 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.
20. Thus it is not only when there is a bench mark but
in all cases that an entry (whether it is poor, fair,
average, good or very good) must be communicated
to a public servant, otherwise there is violation of the
principle of fairness, which is the soul of natural
justice. Even an outstanding entry should be
communicated since that would boost the morale of
the employee and make him work harder.”
6. By the above judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that ‘no
person can be denied promotion on the basis of
uncommunicated adverse ACRs’. He further submits that in
terms of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Dev Dutt (supra), the petitioners issued Office Memorandum
dated 14.05.2009 wherein, it was specifically mentioned that
‘promotions cannot be denied on the basis of
uncommunicated ACRs’.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that though there is no
dispute regarding the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dev Dutt (supra) and the Office Memorandum dated
14.05.2009 issued pursuant thereto, however both, the judgment
and the said Office Memorandum, were prospective in nature and
cannot be read/applied retrospectively. The Office Memorandum
was issued strictly in compliance of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Dev Dutt (supra), and the petitioners have
acted in strict compliance with the said law and the Office
Memorandum was issued for the same.
8. As far as the case of the respondent is concerned, he was
rightly considered however, as he was not having the required
ACRs and was therefore not considered for the promotion. Further,
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (7 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
having retired in the year 2005, the filing of the O.A. after a delay
of more than 7-8 years, seeking promotion on the basis of
uncommunicated ACRs by applying the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court retrospectively, including the office memorandum, is
completely baseless. However, these facts have not been rightly
considered by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned
order dated 03.12.2021.
9. In view of the above learned counsel prayed that the writ
petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned
Tribunal dated 03.12.2021 be quashed and set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the sole respondent Mr.
Satish Chandra Pachori, who appeared through video conferencing
and assisted by Adv. Santosh Chaudhary, submitted that the
respondent was wrongly denied for promotion on the post of
Senior SDE despite being eligible under the applicable Rules.
Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent was never
informed of the reasons for denial of promotion. It was only when
he took certain information under RTI then he came to know that
as he was not having the required benchmark ACRs, therefore,
was not considered for promotion.
11. It is further submitted that the respondent had the requisite
ACRs, however, without any notice or intimation, his annual
grading were downgraded, which were never communicated to
him, therefore on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs or below
benchmark ACRs, the promotion was wrongly denied and this fact
was rightly considered by learned Tribunal while allowing O.A. vide
its judgment dated 03.12.2021. He further submitted that learned
Tribunal duly considered the settled law in regard to the denial of
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (8 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
promotion on the basis of uncommunicated ACRs. Therefore, no
illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal while
passing the order dated 03.12.2021.
12. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
13. The brief facts of the case as noted on the basis of the
submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, are
that the respondent, who was last working as SDE, retired from
the services of the petitioners on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2005. To be eligible for promotion to the
post of Sr. SDE, the required condition was that employee should
not have more than two “Average” ACRs in the last five years
preceding the DPC year. The ACRs of respondent, as noted from
the paper book of the case, are as under:-
Year Comments of Reporting Officer Comments of
Reviewing Officer
1999-2000 Good and Very Good Agreed with
reporting officer
2000-2001 Good and Very Good Not agreed with R/O
and given average
2001-2002 Good and Very Good Not agreed with R/O
and given average
2002-2003 Average Agreed with R/O and
given average
2003-2004 Good Agreed with R/O and
given good
14. The above chart reflects that during the period from 1999-
2000 to 2003-2004, the respondent was graded “Average” in
three years i.e. 2000-2001, 2001-2002 & 2002-2003. As the
respondent did not meet the required benchmark ACRs, he was
not considered for promotion by the petitioners. The respondent
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (9 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
did not challenge the denial of promotion on time and he retired
on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2005.
15. As noted, the petitioners again conducted the promotion
process in the year 2009, for which a meeting of the Departmental
Promotion Committee was held for the respective previous year
vacancy. Even in the year 2009, the respondent was not
considered and was not promoted to the post of Sr. SDE. The
respondent filed the OA in the year 2013 nearly 7-8 years after
attaining the age of superannuation, on the ground that he was
denied promotion to the post of Sr. SDE on the basis of
uncommunicated adverse ACRs or below benchmark ACRs.
16. This Court noted that the respondent had slept over
his rights and never questioned the action of the
petitioners at the relevant time when his candidature was
twice not considered and denied promotion to the post of
Sr. SDE.
17. The issue of non consideration of the candidature on the
basis of uncommunicated ACRs came to be examined by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“39. In the present case, we are developing the
principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and
transparency in public administration requires that all
entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very
good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public
servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other
State service (except the military), must be
communicated to him within a reasonable period so
that he can make a representation for its upgradation.
This in our opinion is the correct legal position even
though there may be no Rule/G.O. requiring
communication of the entry, or even if there is a
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (10 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-
arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14
of the Constitution in our opinion requires such
communication. Article 14 will override all rules or
government orders.
40. We further hold that when the entry is
communicated to him the public servant should have a
right to make a representation against the entry to the
concerned authority, and the concerned authority must
decide the representation in a fair manner and within a
reasonable period. We also hold that the representation
must be decided by an authority higher than the one
who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the
representation will be summarily rejected without
adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from
Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to
fairness and transparency in public administration, and
would result in fairness to public servants. The State
must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards
its employees. Only then would good governance be
possible.
18. By the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
no person can be denied for promotion on the basis of
uncommunicated ACRs, and his candidature should be
considered only on the basis of communicated ACRs.
19. Considering the judgment as passed by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) dated 12.05.2008, the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Government
of India, issued an Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 in
compliance with the said judgment, wherein the following
directions were issued:-
“(i) The existing nomenclature of the Annual
Confidential Report will be modified as Annual
Performance Assessment Report (APAR).
(ii) The full APAR including the overall grade
and assessment of integrity shall be(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (11 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]communicated to the concerned officer after
the Report is complete with the remarks of the
Reviewing Officer and the Accepting Authority
wherever such system is in vogue. Where
Government servant has only one supervisory
level above him as in the case of personal staff
attached to officers, such communication shall
be made after the reporting officer has
completed the performance assessment.
(iii) The Section entrusted with the
maintenance of APARs after its receipt shall
disclose the same to the officer reported upon.
(iv) The concerned officer shall be given the
opportunity to make any representation against
the entries and the final grading given in the
Report within a period of fifteen days from the
date of receipt of the entries in the APAR. The
representation shall be restricted to the specific
factual observations contained in the report
leading to assessment of the officer in terms of
attributes, work output etc. While
communicating the entries, it shall be made
clear that in case no representation is received
within the fifteen days, it shall be deemed that
he/she has no representation to make. If the
concerned APAR Section does not receive any
information from the concerned officer on or
before fifteen days from the date of disclosure,
the APAR will be treated as final.
(v) The new system of communicating the
entries in the APAR shall be made
applicable prospectively only with effect
from the reporting period 2008-09 which
is to be initiated after 1st April 2009.
(vi) The competent authority for considering
adverse remarks under the existing instructions
may consider the representation, if necessary,
in consultation with the reporting and/or
reviewing officer and shall decide the matter
objectively based on the material placed before
him within a period of thirty days from the date
of receipt of the representation.”
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (12 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
(vii) The competent authority after due
consideration may reject the representation or
may accept and modify the APAR accordingly.
The decision of the competent authority and
the final grading shall be communicated to the
officer reported upon within fifteen days of
receipt of the decision of the competent
authority by the concerned APAR Section.”
20. All the Ministries and Departments of Government of India
were directed to follow the above directions strictly. It is relevant
to note here that the Office Memorandum was made prospective
in nature.
21. This Court noted that the judgment was passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 2008, pursuant thereto, the UOI
issued the Office Memorandum dated 14.05.2009 and taking the
said memorandum as the basis and relying upon subsequent
information collected in the year 2010, the respondent filed the
O.A. in the year 2013 claiming promotion in the years 2004/2009,
when he was not considered for promotion to the post of Sr. SDE,
after 7-8 years of his retirement.
22. The law has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in regard
to non-communicated ACRs, however, the said judgment was
prospective and promotions as made in the years 2004 and 2009,
which had attained finality cannot now be opened now after so
many years when no person, who was promoted at the relevant
time, was made party respondent in the O.A. as well as in this
petition and the promotions which attained finality cannot be
allowed to be disturbed after so many years. The promotions
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:5122-DB] (13 of 13) [CW-8277/2022]
made long back and persons who have retired cannot be made to
suffer now just because respondent became vigilant later on.
23. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the
learned Tribunal committed a serious mistake in law by directing
the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for
promotion to the post of Sr. SDE after so many years, after his
superannuation in the year 2005, by order dated 03.12.2021. The
promotions and the actions of the respondents which attained
finality almost two decades back cannot be unsettled now in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned
order dated 03.12.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal is quashed
and set aside and the writ petition filed by the petitioners is
allowed.
24. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
PAYAL DHAWAN/22
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:06:11 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:54:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
