DEV DUTT versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 12-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R.174 
1 
A 
DEV DUTT 
v: 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.7631/2002) 
B 
MAY 12, 2008 
[H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
Service law -Adverse entries, in Annual Confidentiai Re-
port - Non-communication- Effect of - On facts, for promotion 
c to the post of Superintending Engineer, bench mark 'very good' 
for last 5 years- Incumbent having only 'good' entry for 1993-
94, thus; not considered for promotion - Challenge to, for non-
communication of 'good' entry - Held: Every entry in ACR of 
every employee under the State, whether in civil, judicial, po-
D lice or other service (except military) must be communicated 
to him, within a reasonable period, to enable him to make rep-
resentation against it and praying for its up-gradation - It is 
not that only adverse entry is to be communicated - In the 
factual situation 'good' entry is adverse entry because it elimi-
E 
nated the incumbent's chance from being considered for pro-
motion - Rigours of entry is important and not phraseology -
Non-communication of entry may affect his chances for pro-
motion or get other benefits - Hence, non-communication of 
entry in A CR arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 - Constitu-
tion of India, 1950 Article 14. 
F 
The appellant-Executive Engineer was not found eli-
gible for promotion to the post of Superintending Engi-
n~er on completion of 5 years on the grade of Executive 
Engineer. However, his juniors were selected and pro-
G moted to the rank of Superintending Engineer. Appellant 
filed Writ Petition. Respondent contended that as per para 
• 
6.3(ii) of the guidelines for promotion of departmental can-
didates issued by Government of India, Ministry of Public 
Grievances and Pension, vide Office Memorandum dated 
H 
174 
DEV DUTT v. UNION OF INDIA 
& ORS. 
175 
10.4.1989, for promotion to the post of Superintending A 
Engineer, bench mark was 'very good' for last 5 years be-
fore DCP, and the appellant did not have 'very good' en-
try but only 'good' entry for the year 1993-94, thus, was 
not considered for promotion. Appellant filed writ petition. 
He contended that since he was not communicated the B 
'good' entry for the year 1993-94, the rules of natural jus-
tice were violated. High Court dismissed the writ petition 
as also the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It cannot be said that only an adverse entry 
needs to be communicated to an employee. Every entry 
must be communicated to the employee concerned, so that 
c 
he may have an opportunity of making a representation 
against it if he is aggrieved. [Paras 8 and 9) [182-G,H, 183-A] 0 
1.2 The bench mark (i.e. t!le essential requirement) 
laid down by the authorities for promotion to the post of 
Superintending Engineer was that the candidate should 
have 'very good' entry for the last five years. Thus, in this 
situation the 'good' entry in fact is an adverse entry be-
E 
cause it eliminates the candidate from being considered 
for promotion. The nomenclature is not relevant, it is the 
effect which the entry is having which determines whether 
it is an adverse entry or not. It is thus the rigours of the 
entry which is important, not the phraseology. The grant F 
of a 'good' entry is of no satisfaction to the incumbent if it 
in fact makes him ineligible for promotion or has an ad-
verse effect on his chances.[Para 10) [183-8-D] 
1.3 The 'good' entry should have been communicated 
to the appellant so as to enable him to make a representa-
G 
tion praying that the said entry for the year 1993-94 should 
be upgraded from 'good' to 'very good'. After considering 
such a representation it was open to the authority con-
cerned to reject the representation and confirm the 'good' 
entry (though of course in a fair manner), but at least an 
H 
176 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 
A opportunity of making such a representation should have 
been given to the appellant, and that would only have been 
possible had the appellant been communicated the 'good' 
entry, which was not done in the instant case. Hence, the 
non-communication of the 'good' entry was arbitrary and 
B hence illegal. [Para 11] [183-D-F] 
Vijay Kumar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1988 (Supp) 
SCC 67 4; State of Gujarat & Anr vs. Suryakant Ch uni/a/ Shah 
1999 (1) sec 529 - distinguished. 
c 
1.4 The non-communication of an entry in the A.C.R. 
of a public servant is arbitrary because it deprives the con-
cerned employee from mak

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.