TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der or direction, the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2010 passed in the O.A. No. 5/2010, may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in favour of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1-original applicant (henceforth also referred to as 'original applicant') was inducted in the services of the Union as an officer of the Indian Revenue Services (Batch 1976), and was promoted on the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur; the present case pertains to the original applicant's claim for his due promotion on the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (in short, "CCIT") against the vacancy arising in year 2008-09. 2.1. The respondent-applicant was originally considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee ("DPC") held on 18.11.2008 for the promotion to the post in question i.e. CCIT, however the DPC did not recommend his case on the ground that in one of the five years' Annual Confidential Report ("ACR") i.e. for the year 2006-07, he was rated "Good",....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-02, instead of the ACR of the year 2006- 07. Hence, the present petition has been preferred by the Union of India, claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Mr. Sunil Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the determination made by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order is contrary to law as well as facts, inasmuch as the case which was never setup by the original application (respondent No.1 herein) has been assumed and directions have been given based on certain presumptions. In the present case, there was no plea made by the respondent-applicant that the ACR of 2006-07 may be ignored and ACR of 2001-02 may be considered, but while ignoring the said vital aspect of the case, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that so far as the promotion is question is concerned, it has to be governed by the Rules of promotion which prescribes that one has to possess the required benchmark for all the five preceding years. In the present case, the promotion in question was for the vacancy year 2008-09, and therefore, the ACRs from the year 2002 to 2008 were to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the petitioners, at the outset submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners have suppressed the fact of them filing a Review Petition No. 11/2010 in O.A. No.5/2010 before the learned Tribunal, seeking review of the same order dated 30.03.2010 as impugned herein. As per learned counsel, since the said review was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 22.09.2010, the order dated 30.03.2010 impugned herein, stood merged in the said order dated 22.09.2010, which is not challenged in the instant petition preferred by the Union of India. 4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that promotion in question has been denied to the respondent-applicant on the basis of a non-communicated ACR of 2006-07, which ought not to be considered as per the settled proposition of law on the subject. 4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the representation made by the respondent-applicant was considered by the competent authority, who has stated it to be "at par with the required Benchmark". He further submitted that it was because of original applicant's consistent performance, he got promotions throughout his career and that his perf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case as well as the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court notes that the respondent-applicant, an IRS officer of the 1976 batch serving as Commissioner of Income Tax at Jodhpur, was denied promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax for the year 2008-09 by the DPC held on 18.11.2008, citing his ACR for 2006-07 as below the prescribed benchmark of 'Very Good' or 'Outstanding'. Aggrieved, he initially filed O.A. No. 252/2008, which was later transferred and renumbered as O.A. No. 1540/2009 before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, which directed the petitioners to communicate the said ACR, permit representation, and convene a Review DPC if the representation improved the rating to the required benchmark. Upon review, the respondent was again declared 'Unfit', due to lack of justification supporting the requisite benchmark. Challenging this, the respondent filed O.A. No. 5/2010, wherein the Tribunal, vide order dated 30.03.2010, directed reconsideration based on the ACR of 2001-02 in lieu of 2006-07. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 7. This court observes that since the r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... benchmark, 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. 17. In our opinion, every entry in the ACR 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 v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : AIR 1978 SC 597] that arbitrariness vio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olistic evaluation of a candidate's competence, experience, and alignment with the functional requirements of the post. It is possible for a candidate to be eligible yet be adjudged unsuitable upon such assessment. In the present case, although the respondent-applicant met the eligibility criteria based on his service record, he was ultimately found unsuitable for promotion owing to his failure to attain the requisite benchmark grading in one of the relevant years. 11. This Court further observes that the second round of litigation initiated by the respondent-applicant, challenging the decision of the Review DPC, appears to be a mere endeavour to assert a claim to promotion, notwithstanding his adjudication as unsuitable on merits by the competent authority. 12. This Court is also mindful of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 13187 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024), wherein it was held that Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India secure equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment and promotion. Nevertheless, the Apex Court clarified that such constitutional ....