"Very Unfortunate That High Court Has Misunderstood Our Order" : Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Manipur HC

The Supreme Court on March 29 expressed displeasure at the Manipur High Court for not complying with its February judgment (where the top court had required the case for promotion of an employee of the High Court to be considered on the basis of 2 years' ACRs), and for instead proceeding to convene fresh DPC to consider the case of other selected candidates also.Justice M. R. Shah reprimanded the advocate for the High Court- "Why are you now conducting fresh DPC with respect to 8 other persons? Tell your High Court, our order is very clear! Out of five years, 3 ACRs are to be ignored and 2 to be considered and thereafter her case be reconsidered and she has to be given promotion. Don’t make it an ego issue! When the High Court is running the administration, the High Court should be fair to everybody! Do not make it an ego issue, tell your Chief Justice!"The judge demanded, "Where was the pressure of considering other persons also? Only her case would be considered! And she shall be placed at the place where the junior was promoted. The High Court is not understanding the order? Our order is very clear, tell your Chief Justice! Consider her case! There was no confusion! The order is very clear. We are not concerned with whether there are 6 posts or 60 posts or 600 posts, we are concerned with the case of the original writ petitioner and her case is to be reconsidered ignoring 3 ACRs! After ignoring three years' ACRs, two are very good. So she is bound to be given promotion!"When the advocate for the High Court sought to urge that the order may have been "misunderstood", Justice Shah rebuked by saying the order is "very clear!""Do you want contempt notice against the High Court? The order is very clear...it appears that the High Court understands that they are above the Supreme Court! We are issuing contempt notice against the High Court now!", Justice Shah sternly expressedThe bench also comprised Justice C. T. Ravikumar who noted, "The word used (in the judgment) is 'her case is required to be considered afresh'. There is no scope for any confusion"The bench then passed the following order- "It is very unfortunate that the High Court has misunderstood our earlier judgment and order dated 24.02.2023. Our judgment and order is very clear by which this Court directed to reconsider the case of the original writ petitioner for promotion considering the ACRs of 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Administrative side of the High Court is bound to consider the same in its true letter and spirit. There was no question of fresh DPC to consider the case of the other selected candidates also. In fact, their services are already protected. The High Court is directed to act as per our earlier judgment and order dated 24.02.2023 in its true letter and spirit within a period of 2 weeks from today and submit the compliance report before this Court"In its judgment of February 24, 2023, the Supreme Court held that failure to accord sufficient time for an employee to challenge the assessment of their performance for a particular year in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) before a departmental promotion committee is convened, would be treated as a non-disclosure of the evaluation report, while setting aside the proceedings of a DPC of the Manipur High Court determining appointment to the post of assistant registrar.The bench of Justices M. R. Shah and C. T. Ravikumar was hearing a writ petition by an employee of the high court who claimed that she was entitled to be promoted to the post of assistant registrar on the basis of a seniority-cum-merit calculus. On behalf of the aggrieved petitioner, Senior Advocate R. Bala Subramanian assailed the decision of the promotion committee, inter alia, on the ground that the ACR for the year 2016-17 awarding the employee with a ‘Good’ grade was not communicated to the petitioner and the ACR for the 2019-20 having the same grade, was communicated only one day before the committee met. The crux of the petitioner’s contention was that these two uncommunicated ACRs could not be considered when assessing her suitability for promotion. The senior counsel alleged, “In the remaining years, the petitioner was awarded a ‘Very Good’ grade. If the ACRs for the years 2016-17 and 2019-20 are excluded, the petitioner would have gotten the promotion"Noting that the claim of the petitioner that the 2016-17 ACR had not been communicated to her before the promotion committee met in 2021, remained undisputed, the court reiterated that uncommunicated adverse ACRs, even with a ‘Good’ entry (can be considered to be adverse in the context of eligibility for promotion) is not to be relied on when considering an employee for a promotion. Similarly, the performance evaluation report for the year 2019-20 was disclosed one day before the promotion committee was convened, even though the petitioner had 15 days to make a representation against the grade awarded to her in the report. Therefore, Justice Shah wrote, “Either the...

"Very Unfortunate That High Court Has Misunderstood Our Order" : Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Manipur HC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

"Very Unfortunate That High Court Has Misunderstood Our Order" : Supreme Court Expresses Displeasure At Manipur HC

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers