R. K. JIBANLATA DEVI versus HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 24-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 96
96
R. K. JIBANLATA DEVI
v.
HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR
GENERAL AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1209 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 24, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Service Law – High Court of Manipur Officers and Employees
Recruitment and Conditions of Service (Classification, Control,
Appeal and Conduct) Rules, 2020 – Promotion – Reliance upon
uncommunicated adverse ACRs – Impermissibility of – Held:
Uncommunicated adverse ACRs may be even with “Good” entry
which can be said to be adverse in the context of eligibility for
promotion is not to be relied upon for consideration of promotion –
In the present case, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the
post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021 to be considered afresh
ignoring the uncommunicated ACRs for the years 2016-17 and
2019-20 and taking into consideration the ACRs for the years 2017-
18 & 2018-19 for which the petitioner was having “Very Good”
gradings – DPC proceedings dated 09.04.2021 denying the
promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar quashed
and set aside – Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Gauhati High
Court Service Rules, 1967 .
Allowing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the present case the dispute is with respect
to the post of Assistant Registrar in the High Court of Manipur.
Prior to the Rules 2020, the promotion to the post of Assistant
Registrar was governed by the Gauhati High Court Service Rules,
1967. However, the Manipur High Court framed its own rules
namely Rules, 2020. The DPC met to fill up the post of Assistant
Registrar on 09.04.2021. Therefore, as such the Rules, 2020
which were prevailing at the time when the DPC met were rightly
considered. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that for
the post of promotion to the Assistant Registrar the ACRs of
preceding four years from the date of DPC were required to be
taken into consideration. Therefore, in the present case the ACRs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
97
for the period between 2016- 2017 to 2019-2020 were required
to be taken into consideration and in fact taken into consideration.
As observed hereinabove out of 100 marks ACR weightage was
of 80 marks. [Paras 6 and 6.3][103-A-C, F-G]
1.2 In the present case the petitioner got “Good” gradings
for the year 2016-17 and received “Very Good” gradings in her
ACRs for the years 2017-18 and 2018-2019. It was the specific
case on behalf of the petitioner which has not been denied that
the ACRs grading of “Good” for the year 2016-17 was never
communicated to the petitioner even till the DPC met. Therefore,
uncommunicated ACR for the year 2016-17 having the grading
“Good” could not have been relied upon for consideration for
promotion. Similarly, so far as the ACR gradings for the year 2019-
2020 is concerned, admittedly the same was communicated to
the petitioner on 08.04.2021, just one day before the DPC met
on 09.04.2021. The petitioner was having 15 days’ time to make
the representation against the ACR grading for the year 2019-
2020. Before the 15 days were over, the DPC met on 09.04.2021
and considered the case of the petitioner for promotion. The
petitioner was having 15 days’ time from 08.04.2021 to make a
representation. Therefore, either the DPC could have been
postponed or the ACR for the year 2019-2020 ought not to have
been considered and the same ought to have been treated as
uncommunicated ACR. As the ACR Grading of “Good” for the
year 2016-17 was not communicated till the DPC met, the same
is to be ignored and/ or be not relied upon for consideration of
promotion. Similarly, the grading for the year 2019-2020 also is
to be excluded and/or be not relied upon for consideration for
promotion as the same was communicated on 08.04.2021 and the
petitioner was granted 15 days’ time to make representation and
before the representation could be made the DPC met on
09.04.2021 and considered the case of the petitioner for
promotion. [Paras 6.4, 6.5 and 6.7][103-H; 104-A-G]
1.3 The DPC proceedings dated 09.04.2021 denying the
promotion to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Registrar
are hereby quashed and set aside. The case of the petitioner for
promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar as on 09.04.2021
R. K. JIBANLATA DEVI v. HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
i.e., the date on which the juniors came to be promoted is directed
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.