Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1806 (GAU)

Shambhu Dutt S/o Shankar Dutt v. Union of India

2025-11-10

KARDAK ETE

body2025
Judgment & Order : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition, the writ petitioner has challenged the non-consideration for promotion while promoting his junior to the rank of Warrant Officer/General Duty (GD). 3. The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that he was enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 17.02.1991 as Rifleman/GD. After completion of his military basic training, the petitioner was posted to various places of posting. 4 . It is the contention of the petitioner that he is qualified to be considered for next higher rank/post of Warrant Officer (GD). Although, the petitioner having been qualified and eligible to be considered for promotion in the year 2019, the respondent authorities arbitrarily had not considered the petitioner for promotion. However, his junior was considered and promoted to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) by superseding the petitioner vide order dated 26.05.2019. The petitioner was promoted to the rank of Havildar in 2008 and the relevant requirements under the instructions is that for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer, one must have qualifying six years in the grade of Havilar. 5. Ms. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner is eligible for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2019 when his junior was promoted as the petitioner having been promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2008. It is also not disputed that the respondent authorities have promoted the junior while ignoring the case of the petitioner. However, on the representation of the petitioner, the respondent authorities have now promoted the petitioner to the post of Warrant Officer w.e.f. 22.02.2022. Since the petitioner has been superseded by his junior, his promotion ought to have been from the date when the junior of the petitioner was promoted. Therefore, she submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) w.e.f. 01.04.2019 i.e. from the date when his junior was promoted with all consequential service benefits. 6. Mr. Therefore, she submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) w.e.f. 01.04.2019 i.e. from the date when his junior was promoted with all consequential service benefits. 6. Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC submits that the petitioner had to be superseded for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2019 due to non-fulfillment of the eligible criteria as reflected in the ACR in terms of the instructions regulating the promotion. The petitioner was not considered for promotion while considering the junior of the petitioner on the basis of the non-fulfillment of criteria. He submits that the ACR did not contain adverse remarks therefore, same was not required to be communicated as it provides that only adverse remarks, weak points and below average, figure assessment in quality will be communicated in writing in the form of a letter. Therefore, he submits that since petitioner has been now promoted to the rank of Warrant Officer (GD) from the year 2022, he is not entitled to be promoted from the year 2019 as the petitioner at the relevant point of time was not eligible in terms of the relevant instructions. However, he fairly submits that the entries in ACR ought to have been communicated in view of the settled position of law. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar in the year 2008, who was eligible in the year 2019 when the DPC was held. It is also admitted position that one junior Havildar has been promoted by superseding the petitioner in the year 2019. Now the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) in the year 2022 from the date of DPC. 9. It is seen that non-consideration of the petitioner in the year 2019, was on the basis of the entries in the ACR of the petitioner. The entries in the ACRs, which was the basis for non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion, was not communicated to the petitioner. 10 . Regarding the communication of the entry in the ACR, has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The entries in the ACRs, which was the basis for non-consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion, was not communicated to the petitioner. 10 . Regarding the communication of the entry in the ACR, has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A profitable reference may be made to the case of the Dev Dutt – vs Union of India & Others reported in (2008) 8 SCC 725 . It is no longer res integra that every entry adverse or not in the ACR should be communicated to the Officer/Officials by the authority concerned. 11. As noted above, in the present case, it is admitted position that the remarks/entries in the ACR of the petitioner, which was the basis for non-consideration in the year 2019, was not communicated to the petitioner. Since the non-consideration of the promotion of the petitioner in the 2019 while promoting the junior is clearly based on the remarks/entries in the ACR for the year 2015-16 and certain entries/remarks in the ACR having not been communicated, I am of the considered view that the non-consideration on the basis of un- communicated remarks/entries in the ACR, has caused prejudice to the petitioner as it is settled position that even if entries/remarks in the ACR is not adverse, the same requires to be communicated. 12. Having considered above, I am of the considered view that non-communication of the remarks/entries of the ACR to the petitioner had an adverse effect as the respondent authorities have not considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) purely on the basis of entries/remarks made in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16. 13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the respondent authorities are deserved to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) from the date when his junior was promoted in the year 2019 i.e. from 01.04.2019. 14. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner be granted promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2019 from the date when his junior was promoted to the post of Warrant Officer (GD) as the reason for non-consideration was on the basis of the entry/remarks in the ACR of the petitioner for the year 2015-16, which was not communicated to the petitioner. 15 . Writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.