Supreme Court directs reconsideration for promotion based on ACRs

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax based on communicated ACRs from specific years. If found suitable for promotion, the appellant would be entitled to arrears of salary and revision of retiral benefits. The authorities were instructed not to interfere with already made promotions and given the option to create a notional post if needed to implement the order.

---

---

Issues:
1. Consideration for promotion from Commissioner of Income Tax to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax.
2. Validity of uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports in promotion decisions.
3. Judicial interpretation of non-communication of ACR entries and its impact on promotions.

Issue 1: Consideration for promotion
The appellant sought promotion from Commissioner of Income Tax to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The criteria for promotion required a "very good" service record, as per DoPT guidelines. The appellant's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000 were considered. While some ACRs were rated as "good," others were rated as "very good." Due to not meeting the "very good" benchmark, the appellant was not promoted.

Issue 2: Validity of uncommunicated ACRs
The appellant challenged the non-consideration of his promotion claim due to uncommunicated ACRs. The Administrative Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing a review of his case. However, the High Court overturned this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments emphasizing that non-communication of ACR entries can impact promotions and violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue 3: Judicial interpretation of non-communication of ACR entries
The Supreme Court referred to previous cases like Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India to support the importance of communicating ACR entries to public servants. The Court held that every ACR entry, whether poor, fair, average, good, or very good, must be communicated within a reasonable period. In this case, the uncommunicated "good" ratings affected the promotion decision. The Court set aside the High Court's order and directed reconsideration of the promotion based on valid ACRs from specific years.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the reconsideration of the appellant's promotion to Chief Commissioner of Income Tax based on communicated ACRs from specific years. If found suitable for promotion, the appellant would be entitled to arrears of salary and revision of retiral benefits. The authorities were instructed not to interfere with already made promotions and given the option to create a notional post if needed to implement the order.

---