disclosing or showing of ACR or Annual Confidential Reports to a government servant
BRAJENDRA SINGH
(Querist) 14 May 2008
This query is : Resolved
Recently Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (Justice Markanday Katju & Justice H K Sema) has given a verdict reverting earlier decision of Guwahati High Court that ACR should be shown to a government servant.
Ref:Case of Sri Devdutt Executive Engineer vs. Border Roads Engineering Services
Kindly provide me copy of the Judgement.
BRAJENDRA SINGH
singhbbd@gmail.com
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 14 May 2008
2008 INDLAW SC 817
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]
Dev Dutt
v
Union of India and Others
Markandeya Katju
12 May 2008
BENCH
H. K. Sema & Markandeya Katju
CASES REFERRED TO
Union of India and another v Major Bahadur Singh 2005 Indlaw SC 828
Canara Bank v V.K. Awasthy 2005 Indlaw SC 261
Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited v Girja Shankar Pant and Others 2000 Indlaw SC 2697
State of Uttar Pradesh v Yamuna Shanker Misra 1997 Indlaw SC 1025
U.P. Jal Nigam and Others v Prabhat Chandra Jain and Others 1996 Indlaw SC 3444
Vijay Kumar, I. A. S v State of Maharashtra and Others 1988 Indlaw SC 582
K.I. Shephard and Others Etc v Union of India and Others 1987 Indlaw SC 28776
Union of India and Another v Tulsiram Patel and Others 1985 Indlaw SC 401
S. N. Mukherjee v Union of India 1981 Indlaw SC 374
Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Limited v Union of India and Two Others Cases 1981 Indlaw SC 349
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v Union of Indian and Another 1978 Indlaw SC 212
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v Chiief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others 1977 Indlaw SC 53
A. K. Kraipak and Others v Union of India and Others 1969 Indlaw SC 271
Russell v Duke of Norfolk and Others 1948 Indlaw CA 13
General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom v Spackman 1943 Indlaw HL 19
State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587
Union of India & Anr. vs. S. K. Goel & Ors. [2007 AIR(SC) 1199]
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. N.R. Vairamani [2004 AIR(SC) 4778]
State of Gujarat & Anr. vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah 1999 (1) SCC 529
Ormond, L.J. in Norwest Holst Ltd. vs. Secretary of State for Trade [1978 (1) Ch 201]
ACTS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950[art. 14]
CASE NO
Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002
EDITOR'S NOTE
Service - Denial of Promotion to appellant on the ground that appellant did not have 'very good' entry but only 'good' entry for the year 1993-94 - Grievance of the appellant was that he was not communicated the 'good' entry and had he been communicated that entry he would have had an opportunity of making a representation for upgrading that entry from 'good' to 'very good' - Held, non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether he is in civil, judicial, police or any other service (other than the military), certainly has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or get other benefits - Such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of art. 14 of the Constitution - Appeal allowed.
KEYWORDS
Natural Justice, Principles Of Natural Justice, Arbitrariness, Government servant, Right To Promotion, Election Commission, Appeal allowed, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE, Administration Of Justice, Constitution Of India, 1950, SERVICE, CONSTITUTION, Violation Of, Pay Scale, Arrears Of Pay, Chances Of Promotion, Fairness, State Action, Office Memorandum, Confidential Report, Government Servants
.JUDGMENT TEXT
The Judgment was delivered by : MARKANDEY KATJU
1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 26.11.2001 in Writ Appeal No. 447 of 2001. By the aforesaid judgment the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal of the appellant filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2001.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The appellant was in the service of the Border Roads Engineering Service which is governed by the Border Roads Engineering Service Group 'A' Rules, as amended. As per these rules, since the appellant was promoted as Executive Engineer on 22.2.1988, he was eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer on completion of 5 years on the grade of Executive Engineer, which he completed on 21.2.1993.
Accordingly the name of the appellant was included in the list of
