Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
S. S. Sharma Son Of Late Shri Jai Ram ... vs The Union Of India on 13 January, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:457-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8864/2019
S. S. Sharma Son Of Late Shri Jai Ram Sharma, Aged About 65
Years, At Present Working On The Post Of Vice-Principal In
Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 5, Mansarovar, Jaipur Resident Of Jhot-
wara, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Commissioner, Kendriya
Vidyalaya Sangathan, 18 Institution Area, Sahid Jeet
Singh Marg, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya San-
gathan, Regional Office, 92, Gandhi Nagar Marg, Bajaj
Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal assisted
by Mr. Devanshu Agarwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Verma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 07.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 07.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only operative
Full
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 13.01.2026
Per, Mr. Ravi Chirania, J:-
1. The petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court
challenging the order impugned dated 14.02.2019 passed by
learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench Jaipur (hereinafter
referred to as 'learned Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No.826/2012
filed by the petitioner wherein he challenged the action of the
respondent in rejecting his representation submitted in respect of
downgrading his ACRs in the last five years, which were not
communicated to him and on account of which he was denied
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (2 of 12) [CW-8864/2019]
promotion from the post of Vice-Principal to Principal in the re-
spondent-organisation.
2. The brief facts as submitted by learned counsel for the peti-
tioner are that the petitioner was appointed in the respondent-or-
ganisation i.e. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (hereinafter re-
ferred to as 'KVS' for short) on the post of Trained Graduate
Teacher (TGT) in Jammu and Kashmir on 31.07.1978. Thereafter,
he was promoted to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) on
30.09.1984 and thereafter promoted to the post of Vice-Principal
on 16.09.2005.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Agar-
wal submitted that the next promotion was for the post of Princi-
pal for which petitioner was eligible and entitled, however, he was
not considered for promotion in the year 2009-10, 2010-11 and
2011-12 on the ground that he did not meet the prescribed
benchmark for consideration for the post of Principal under the
Rules. On being denied the consideration for the year from 2009-
10 to 2011-12, the petitioner raised grievances before the respon-
dent and he was informed that he did not have the prescribed
benchmark (which is 'good') for being eligible for promotion to the
post of Principal. The petitioner was informed by memorandum
dated 28.11.2011 against which the petitioner represented to the
Joint Commissioner (Admn.) of the respondent-organisation which
then advised the petitioner to apply for review of his ACRs to
Deputy Commissioner, Regional Office Jaipur which is the compe-
tent authority in terms of Article 91 of the Education Code of KVS.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (3 of 12) [CW-8864/2019]
4. In terms of memorandum dated 22.08.2012 as issued by
Joint Commissioner (Admn.), the petitioner submitted a represen-
tation through proper channel to the Commissioner, KVS, New
Delhi for review of his ACRs. The respondent decided the repre-
sentation of the petitioner regarding correction/review of the ACRs
by memorandum dated 01.11.2012 whereby the respondent re-
fused to review the ACR without any justified reason. The reason
as recorded while denying the review of the ACR is reproduced as
under:-
"शी एस 0 एस 0 शररर , उप परचररर , के वव. क. 5 जरपु र (पथर पररी),
जरपुर कर रह अनुरोध वक उनकी ACR/ARPAR सत 2006-07,
2007-08. 2008-09 तथर 2009-10 कर पु नररवलोकन अब (At this
stage) वकरर जरएतकरसं गत नहीं है ।"
5. On rejection of the representation the petitioner filed the
Original Application bearing No.826/2012 before the learned Tri-
bunal wherein he challenged the rejection of his representation by
memorandum dated 01.11.2012.
6. Learned counsel submits that it was argued before the
learned Tribunal that for the year 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and
2009-10 he was graded as 'average' and these ACRs were not
communicated to him despite the fact that his ACRs/APARs for the
period 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 were
'good' which shows that in the last five years his ACRs/APARs
from 2001-02 to 2005-06 were 'good', however, on downgrading
from 'good' to 'average' he was not informed by the respondent
which is clearly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified.
7. Learned counsel further submits that except for the period
from 2006-07 to 2009-2010 when he was graded as 'average', in
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (4 of 12) [CW-8864/2019]
his further ACRs for the period 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 he was
graded as 'very good'. He also submits that he was intentionally
downgraded to deny promotion from the post of Vice-Principal to
Principal.
8. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent
KVS filed detailed reply before the learned Tribunal, however, the
learned Tribunal committed a serious error by ignoring the law as
settled regarding non-communication of the adverse ACRs/APARs
and its impact on the promotion and further the respondent them-
selves admitted the fact that the Department of Personnel and
Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Government of India issued Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010
which specifically provides that ACRs/APARs which are below the
benchmark needed for the next promotion must be communi-
cated, however, the respondent acted in violation of their own Of-
fice Memorandum and, therefore, their act of non-communication
of the adverse ACRs/APARs for the year from 2006-07 to 2009-10
from 'good' to 'average' deserves to be declared illegal and denial
of promotion on the basis of non-communicated below the bench-
mark ACR deserves to be declared illegal of the facts and circum-
stances of the case.
9. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.K. Jipan Lata Devi v. High Court of Manipur, through its
Registrar and Ors.1 wherein it was held that as the ACRs were
1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 178
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (5 of 12) [CW-8864/2019]
not communicated till the DPC meeting, therefore, the same can-
not be relied upon for consideration for promotion.
10. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore
in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Shri. A. Muthu Sundaram 2
wherein the Court held that non-communicated remarks cannot be
considered for promotion and therefore denial of promotion on the
basis of non-communicated ACRs was held to be illegal.
11. Per Contra the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr.
Krishna Verma appearing for the respondent strongly opposed the
arguments as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that as the petitioner was not having the required ACRs/APARs of the benchmark for the respective years, therefore, after consideration of his candidature he was not found suitable for promotion to the post of Principal for the respective years.
12. Lastly, he prayed that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal and therefore the present petition be dismissed.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the pleadings and the arguments as advanced before this Court and the judgments cited. The question before this Court in the present writ petition is whether the act of the respondent-KVS was fair and in accordance with law of denying promotion to the petitioner to the post of Principal in the respondent-KVS on the basis of non- communicated below benchmark ACRs/APARs.
2 Writ Petition No.40452-40546/2013, judgment dated 28.04.2014.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (6 of 12) [CW-8864/2019]
14. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Vice-Principal and was eligible for the next promotion to the post of Principal, the eligible candidate must have ACRs/APARs with the grading as 'good'.
15. In the present case, from 2001-02 to 2005-06, the petitioner was graded as 'good', and from 2010-11 to 2012-13, he was graded as 'very good'. However, for a brief period from 2006-07 to 2009-10, he was graded as 'average'. The downgrading from 'good' to 'average' for the period from 2006-07 to 2009-10 was not communicated to the petitioner by the respondent, and there is no denial of this factual aspect. The Department of Personnel and Training of the respondent, though, considered the candida- ture of the petitioner in the meetings held on 27.07.2009 (for the year 2009-10), 04.08.2010 (for the year 2010-11), and 04.03.2011 (for the year 2011-12). However, the DPC did not find him fit for promotion to the post of Principal for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, as he failed to meet the prescribed benchmark of ACR/APAR as 'good', as prescribed under the Rules.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent KVS did not dispute the factual aspect, and rather admitted, that the downgrading of the ACRs/APARs from 'good' to 'average' for the above-mentioned period was not communicated to the petitioner. However, when the petitioner was denied promotion to the above-mentioned post by the respondent for the above-mentioned years, he submitted a representation to the respondent for review/correction of the said ACRs/APARs after he came to know about the adverse/below- benchmark ACRs/APARs. The Joint Commissioner (Admn.) of the (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (7 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] respondent KVS, by memorandum dated 22.08.2012, advised the petitioner to apply for review of his ACRs/APARs. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation; how- ever, the same was not considered, and rather the representa- tion was rejected by memorandum dated 01.11.2012, citing the reason that no revision/correction could be done at that stage and that the same was not logical.
17. The above reasoning as recorded in the memorandum dated 01.11.2012, whereby the representation of the petitioner for cor- rection in the ACRs/APARs was rejected is clearly illegal on the ba- sis of the record & also contrary to settled law in regard to review/corrections of ACRs/APARs.
18. This Court considered the Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 as issued by DoPT, Government of India which specifi- cally mandates that below benchmark ACRs/APARs which have to be considered for promotion must be communi- cated before they are placed before the Department of Pro- motion Committee. The Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 is reproduced as under:
"No. 21011/1/2010-Estt.A Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated the 13th April, 2010 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Below Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting period 2008-09 and objective consideration of representation by the competent authority against re- marks in the APAR or for upgradation of the final grading.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (8 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] The undersigned is directed to say that prior to the re- porting period 2008-09, only the adverse remarks in the ACRs had to be communicated to the concerned officer for representation, if any to be considered by the compe- tent authority. The question of treating the grading in the ACR which is below the benchmark for next promotion has been considered in this Department and it has been decided that if an employee is to be considered for pro- motion in a future DPC and his ACRs prior to the period 2008- 09 which would be reckonable for assessment of his fitness in such future DPCs contain final grading which are below the benchmark for his next promotion, before such ACRs are placed before the DPC, the concerned em- ployee will be given a copy of the relevant ACR for his representation. If any, within 15 days of such communi- cation. It may be noted that only below benchmark ACR tor the period relevant to promotion need be sent. There is no need to send below benchmark ACRs of other years.
2. As per existing instructions, representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR (previously known as ACR) should be exam- ined by the competent authority in consultation, if neces- sary, with the Reporting and the Reviewing Officer, if any. While considering the representation, the competent authority decides the matter objectively in a quasi-judi- cial manner on the basis of material placed before it. This would imply that the competent authority shall take into account the contentions of the officer who has repre- sented against the particular remarks/grading in the APAR and the views of the Reporting and Reviewing offi- cer if they are still in service on the points raised in the representation vis-a-vis the remarks/gradings given by them in the APAR. The UPSC has informed this Depart- ment that the Commission has observed that while decid- ing such representations, the competent authorities sometimes do not take into account the views of Report- ing/Reviewing Officers if they are still in service. The Commission has further observed that in a majority of such cases, the competent authority does not give spe- cific reasons for upgrading the below benchmark ACR/APAR gradings at par with the benchmark for next promotion.
3. All Ministries/Departments are therefore requested to inform the competent authorities while forwarding such cases to them to decide on the representations against the remarks or for upgradation of the grading in the APAR that the decision on the representation may be taken ob- jectively after taking into account the views of the con- cerned Reporting/Reviewing Officers if they are still in (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (9 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] service and in case of upgradation of the final grading given in the APAR, specific reasons therefor may also be given in the order of the competent authority.
(C.A. Subramanian) Director"
19. The above reproduced Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 shows that previously the condition was that adverse remarks in the ACRs were to be communicated and this condition prevailed prior to 2008-09, however, from 2008-09 even below bench- mark ACRs are to be communicated before the considera- tion of the same by the Department of Promotion Commit- tee.
20. From the perusal of the pleadings of the case, the documents as annexed, it is clear that the petitioner was neither communi- cated his downgraded ACRs, nor was he communicated his below benchmark ACRs/APARs by the respondent.
21. This Court also considered the settled law regarding non- communication of the adverse ACRs/APARs as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt v. Union of In- dia and Ors.3 In this judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court consid- ered the issue of non-communication of ACR of public servant which adversely affects his service rights. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"19. In our opinion, every entry in the A.C.R. of a public servant must be communicated to him within a reason- able period, whether it is a poor, fair, average, good or very good entry. This is because non-communication of such an entry may adversely affect the employee in two ways : (1) Had the entry been communicated to him he would know about the assessment of his work and con- duct by his superiors, which would enable him to improve his work in future (2) He would have an opportunity of making a representation against the entry if he feels it is 3 MANU/SC/7666/2008.
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (10 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] unjustified, and pray for its upgradation. Hence non-com- munication of an entry is arbitrary, and it has been held by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) that arbitrari- ness violates Article 14 of the Constitution."
22. The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) still holds the ground and no new law has been laid down. The judgment passed in the case of Dev Dutt (supra) was subsequently considered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar v. Union of India 4 where the similar issue of non-communication of the ACR was examined and held to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
23. In the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra), the three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court did not disturb the law as laid down in that case, however, cited the same observation which are reproduced as under:
"4. The appellant further contended that throughout the period he was given entry of "good". The respondent Department alleged that the appellant was not considered for promotion as he was not having the benchmark of "very good".
(...)
8. Coming to the second aspect, that though the benchmark "very good" is required for being considered for promotion, admittedly the entry of "good" was not communicated to the appellant. The entry of "good" should have been communicated to him as he was having "very good" in the previous year. In those circumstances, in our opinion, non-communication of entries in the ACR of a pub- lic servant whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other ser- vice (other than the armed forces), it has civil consequences be- cause it may affect his chances for promotion or get other bene- fits. Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The same view has been reiterated in the above referred decision (Dev Dutt case, SCC p. 738, para 41) relied on by the appellant. Therefore, the 4 (2009) 16 SCC 146 (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (11 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] entries "good" if at all granted to the appellant, the same should not have been taken into consideration for being considered for promotion to the higher grade. The respondent has no case that the appellant had ever been informed of the nature of the grading given to him.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed out that the officer who was immediately junior in service to the ap- pellant was given promotion on 28-08-2000. Therefore, the appel- lant also be deemed to have been given promotion from 28-08- 2000.
10. Since the appellant had retired from service, we make it clear that he is not entitled to any pay or allowances for the period for which he had not worked in the Higher Administrative Grade Group A, but his retrospective promotion from 28-08-2000 shall be considered for the benefit of refixation of his pension and other retiral benefits as per rules."
24. The Office Memorandum issued subsequent to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar (supra) which further fortified the law that pro- motion cannot be denied to a public servant on the basis of non- communicated adverse ACRs/APARs, and further in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010, even below the bench- mark ACRs needs to be communicated before consideration of candidature of the eligible employee by Department of Promotion Committee.
25. The judgments as cited by the learned counsel for the peti- tioner in the case of Muthu Sundaram (supra) and R.K. Jipan Lata Devi (supra) are also based on law as laid down in Dev Dutt (supra) and there is no change of law.
26. In terms of the Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010 the aforementioned ACRs/APARs of the petitioner were not communi- cated to him which declares the complete action of the respondent of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the (Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM) (Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM) [2026:RJ-JP:457-DB] (12 of 12) [CW-8864/2019] post of Principal for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, on the basis of the non-communicated ACRs/APARs as arbitrary and illegal.
27. In view of the above discussion and after considering the pleadings and the arguments as advanced and the judgments as cited and the law as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court as dis- cussed above, this Court is inclined to allow the present writ peti- tion and accordingly the same is allowed, and the impugned order dated 01.11.2012, and the action of the respondent of denying promotion to the petitioner on the basis of non-communicated be- low the benchmark ACRs/APARs and order dated 14.02.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A. No.826/2012 is declared il- legal and quashed and set aside.
28. The respondent KVS is directed to convene review DPC and consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 on the basis of his ACRs/APARs for the year 2001-02 to 2005-06 where he was graded as good, the required benchmark as per the Rules and pro- mote him to the post of Principal in accordance with law with all consequential benefits including refixation of pension and other re- tiral benefits as per law within a period of two months after passing of this order.
29. No order as to costs.
(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
Dushyant/60
(Uploaded on 16/01/2026 at 03:11:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 16/01/2026 at 10:07:22 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)