Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court Division Bench dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of representations regarding Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The petitioner sought intervention against the rejection of multiple representations concerning ACR gradings over several years, which had been previously addressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The petitioner, an employee of the Central Soil & Mineral Research Station (CSMRS) under the Ministry of Water Resources, River Development, and Ganga Rejuvenation, challenged ACR evaluations from 2001-02, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09. He contended that the Reviewing Officer had lowered his performance ratings without adequate justification. He further stated that no prior warnings or opportunities for improvement had been given before recording adverse entries.

Between 2009 and 2013, the petitioner submitted multiple representations requesting an upgrade of his ACR ratings. These representations were rejected through orders issued on August 5, 2011, December 29, 2011, December 28, 2012, and February 25, 2014. He filed seven Original Applications (OAs) before the Tribunal, which dismissed them in a consolidated judgment on September 12, 2019.

The petitioner approached the High Court, asserting that the Tribunal had not considered the individual circumstances of each year. He argued that the ACRs should have been upgraded in line with past ratings and that the non-communication of adverse entries violated his rights. He also submitted that his "Very Good" ratings in previous years should have been maintained.

The respondents, including the Union of India, opposed the petition, stating that ACR assessments fall within the authority of the Reporting and Reviewing Officers. It was argued that judicial intervention is permissible only in cases involving mala fides, bias, or procedural irregularities. The respondents stated that ACR evaluations followed prescribed procedures and that the Tribunal had appropriately rejected the petitioner’s claims.

The High Court reviewed the applicable legal framework and observed that judicial review in ACR matters is limited. The judgment stated, "Courts normally do not sit in appeal over confidential reports unless a case of mala fides or procedural irregularity is made out." The judgment referred to M.V. Thimmaiah v. UPSC and observed that assessment by Selection Committees and competent authorities should not be interfered with in the absence of unlawful conduct.

Regarding the petitioner’s contention that prior warnings were necessary before lower grades were assigned, the court referred to State of U.P. v. Yamuna Shanker Misra and stated, "while prior communication of deficiencies may be ideal, the law does not mandate it as a precondition for awarding lower grades."

The petitioner’s argument on the non-communication of adverse entries was examined in light of Dev Dutt v. Union of India. The judgment stated, "only remarks that are explicitly adverse require communication, while lower-than-benchmark ratings for promotion do not necessarily qualify as adverse remarks." It was observed that the petitioner’s ratings were below the required promotion benchmark but did not constitute adverse entries, and therefore, non-communication of such ratings did not amount to a procedural violation.

The court also examined whether the Tribunal had failed to consider individual circumstances for each year’s assessment. It was noted that the Tribunal had examined all relevant materials and that the rejection of the petitioner’s representations was based on due consideration. The judgment stated, "The Tribunal has examined all aspects, and there is no basis to conclude that the rejection of representations was arbitrary or unfounded."

The court referred to U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain, which addressed fairness in ACR assessments. The judgment recorded, "While fairness in ACR evaluation is essential, judicial review should not extend to substituting administrative discretion with judicial discretion." The court observed that the petitioner had not presented any material to demonstrate bias or improper assessment.

The petitioner had argued that his past "Very Good" ratings should have been maintained. The judgment stated, "An officer’s past ratings do not create a vested right to similar ratings in the future, as each year’s assessment is independent." The court noted that annual evaluations must reflect performance for the given year and that previous ratings do not guarantee continued high assessments.

The court examined the petitioner’s submissions regarding procedural lapses in rejecting his representations and found no evidence of irregularity. The judgment stated, "The rejection of the representations was in accordance with applicable rules, and no procedural violations have been demonstrated."

The court dismissed the petition, stating, "The petitioner has not established any mala fides, bias, or procedural infirmity in the ACR evaluation process." It observed that the Tribunal had correctly rejected the petitioner’s claims, as no substantial evidence had been provided to justify an upgrade of the ACRs. The judgment recorded, "The Reviewing and Accepting Authorities are empowered to assess performance, and their evaluations are not open to judicial scrutiny unless arbitrariness is established."

The contention that adverse entries should have been communicated was found to be inapplicable, as the ratings were below the promotion benchmark but were not adverse per se. The judgment stated, "Lower-than-benchmark ratings do not automatically qualify as adverse entries requiring communication."

The petitioner’s argument that the Tribunal had failed to consider his claims in detail was also addressed. The court stated, "The Tribunal has examined all relevant factors, and the rejection of the petitioner’s claims is based on a thorough analysis."

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating, "The claims presented by the petitioner do not warrant interference. The writ petition is dismissed." No order as to costs was made.

Case Title: Aabi Binju v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1164/2020
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta

[Read/Download order]