Uncommunicated 'Average' ACR Cannot Deny Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Elevation With Consequential Benefits

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that denial of promotion on the basis of uncommunicated Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. Observing that even a single downgraded ACR, if not communicated, can adversely affect an employee's chances of promotion, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police from the date his juniors were elevated, along with all consequential benefits. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj remarked that: “Since in the present case, the petitioner was not communicated about the ACRs of Average rating before considering his candidature for promotion… this Court is of the considered view that the respondents should promote the petitioner w.e.f. 31.10.2014 with all consequential benefits and he should be placed above his juniors.” Background:The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector appointed in 2008, was considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in October 2014. Although found eligible, he was placed at serial number 69 in the merit list, while only 55 vacancies were available. Consequently, his juniors, who ranked higher in merit, were promoted. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation, contending that his ACRs had been unfairly downgraded and that such adverse gradings were never communicated to himThe petitioner contended that his service record had consistently been rated “Very Good” or “Outstanding” by the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities, but was subsequently downgraded to “Average” by the Accepting Authority without any justification. He argued that these downgraded ACRs were never communicated to him, thereby denying him an opportunity to challenge them. As a result, he lost crucial marks in the promotion process, and even the deduction of a single mark ultimately cost him promotion despite being otherwise eligible.In response, the State contended that promotions were governed by the principle of merit-cum-seniority under the applicable police rules, and that the petitioner was not selected because he scored lower in the merit list due to “Average” ACR gradings. It was further argued that since these entries were not formally “adverse,” there was no requirement to communicate them to the petitioner.The Court first examined the impact of the petitioner's ACR gradings on his promotion prospects and found that the denial of promotion hinged on a marginal difference in marks. It noted that the petitioner had secured 23 marks, while the last selected candidate had secured 23.5 marks. Crucially, the deduction of one mark due to “Average” ACRs directly led to his exclusion from the promotion list.The Court further recorded that these “Average” ACRs, which materially affected the petitioner's merit position, were never communicated to him. The State itself admitted this position, justifying non-communication on the ground that there were no “adverse” entries.Thus, the Court concluded that since the petitioner was not communicated about the ACRs this Court is of the considered view that the respondents should promote the petitioner.Case Name: Vikrant Bomsra V/s State of H.P. & othersCase No.: CWPOA No.5738 of 2019Date of Decision: 24.03.2026 For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ashok K. Tyagi and Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Advocates.For the respondent: Mr.Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General.Click Here To Read/Download Order

Uncommunicated 'Average' ACR Cannot Deny Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Elevation With Consequential Benefits

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags