P. SIVANANDI versus RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 896 · Decided: 02-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 896 
P. SIVANANDI 
v. 
RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4822-4826 of2007) 
FEBRUARY 02, 2017 
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Service Law - Promotion - Delay in writing of Annual 
Confidential Report (ACR) by superior officers - Effect of - Select 
Committee considered appellant for promotion w·1ps -ACR of 
appellant written by his superior officers after some delay -
Considering the service record and ACR of appellant, he was 
promoted to JPS - Tribunal and High Court, however, held the_ 
selection of appellant to be vitiated, on finding that the ACR ·Of 
appellant was written beyond the period prescribed by the State 
Government, hence, was invalid - Propriety of - Held: The ACR of 
an officer forms a part of his service record and he cannot be 
prejudiced merely because his superior officers delayed writing it . 
- In the instant case, the ACR of appellant was written and reviewed 
by his superiors after a considerable delay obviously cannot put 
him to any disadvantage - Further. writing and review of ACR was 
beyond his control - Therefore, High Court was in errvr in 
concluding that ACR for period of three and half 1110111hs could not 
be considered - Decision of High Court to this extent set aside -
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 
- Regn.5. 
Allowing the appeals, tile Court 
HELD: 
WhethertbeAnnual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer forms 
a part of bis 'service record' and whether it could be ignored for 
G 
the pumoses of his promotion merely ou the ground that it was 
written after some delay. 
1.1 It was held by Supreme Court in G Molumasundaram 
case• that in terms of the IAS Regulations, the UPSC is obliged 
to consider the service record of a candidate who is eligible for 
H 
promotion and it is on the basis of the overall relative assessment 
896 
P. SIVANANDI v. RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS. 
of the service record that an eligible officer may be graded. 
Consequently, it is quite clear that the entire service record of 
the eligible candidates is required to be sent to tht Select 
Committee for consideration. For this reason, the ACRs of the 
appellant for 1992-93 and for the period 01.04.1993 to 15;07.1993 
were required to be considered by the Review Select Committee. 
f Para 15] [901-B-C] 
*G Mohanasundaram v. R Nanthagopal & Ors. (2014) 
13 SCC 172 : [2014] 9 SCR 920 - referred to. 
1.2 Fu~~her, one of the prindples so laid down is that the 
prescription ip.· a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but 
directory. TJiat being the position, the ACR of the ap11ellant for 
the period, ,Ql.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 could validly have been 
considered by the Review Select Committee even if it was written 
after some delay and there was no error in its consideration. [Para 
17] [902-D-E] 
2.1 The ACR of an officer forms a part of his service record 
and he cannot be prejudiced merely because his superior officers 
delayed writing it. The fact that the ACR of the appellant was 
written and reviewed by his superior authorities after a 
considerable delay obviously cannot put him to any disadvantage. 
The writing and review of his ACR was beyond his control and 
there is no rational basis on which the appellant c'luld be 
disadvantaged merely because his superior officers were lax in 
the discharge of their responsibilities. [Paras 1, 19] [898-F; 903-
B-C] 
2.2 Under these circumstances, the High Court while 
upholding the view expressed by the Tribunal was in error in 
concluding that the Review Select Committee could not consider 
the ACR of appellant for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 
and to this extent the decision of the High Court set aside. [Para 
20] [903-D] 
3. There is nothing to suggest that the Review Select 
Committee with the UPSC did not consider the case of appellant 
for promotion on merit or that the view of the Revie>t' Select 
Committee was perverse in any manner. That being so it would 
be fo1proper to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Review 
897 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
898 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017]7 S.C.R. 
A 
Select Committee with the UPSC on the basis of the service record 
of appellant more so when it was the submission of the UPSC 
that what tilted the-scales in bis favour was bis ACR for the period 
1992-93 which was earlier missing and which was uot taken into 
consideration on an earlier occasion. [P11r3 21] [903-E-F] 
B 
P. Sivanandi v. Rajiv Kumar MANU/TN/9878/2006 -

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