01. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs by the petitioner:-
(i) ISSUE RULE calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for calling for the records, lying with the official Respondents, for rendering substantial and conscionable justice to the Petitioner;
(ii) ISSUE RULE calling upon the Respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for setting aside/quashing the Circular Letter No.06 of 2025, dated 05.02.2025 forthwith;
(iii) ISSUE RULE calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature thereof, should not be issued directing them to furnish the Annual Performance Review (APR) gradings for the preceding five (5) years pertaining to all eligible Scale-I officers whose APRs were taken into consideration for the preparation of the final merit list dated 01.04.2025 for promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II.
(iv) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and disregard any and all uncommunicated Annual Performance Report (APR) scores, if any, recorded against the Petitioner for the purpose of promotion to the post of Manager in the 2024 cycle;
(v) Direct the Respondents to recompute the Petitioner’s Annual Performance Review (APR) average for the purpose of promotion by considering only those APR gradings which were duly communicated to the Petitioner and in respect whereof the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit a representation, in strict adherence to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India (2008) 8 SCC 725 and Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCC 566; and to exclude from such computation all APR gradings which were never communicated and in respect of which no such opportunity was given, as expressly admitted by the Respondents in their reply to the Petitioner’s representation; and thereafter to determine the Petitioner’s promotion eligibility afresh on the basis of the Written Examination marks, the Interview marks, and only the communicated APR score.
(vi) Direct the Respondents to promote the Petitioner to the post of Manager with retrospective effect from the date on which others were promoted in the 2024 cycle, along with all consequential benefits;
(vii) In the alternative, issue a direction to the Respondents to promote the Petitioner by creating a supernumerary post, so as to prevent any irreparable injury to the Petitioner, without affecting the officers who have already been promoted.
(viii) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of Prayer Nos.(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above;
AND/OR
(ix) Any other relief(s) as to this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper;
AND
For which gracious act of kindness the humble Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pay.
02. Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharya assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Chakraborti appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also heard Counsel, Mr. A. Ray Barman appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank.
03. At the very outset, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court referring the reliefs sought for in the petition and submitted that the petitioner entered into the service as an Assistant Manager and joined on 29.06.2020 as per due recruitment process carried out by the respondents. The respondents-Bank in exercise of administrative functions issued various notifications time to time and by a promotion policy dated 27.11.2024 framed the guidelines for issuing promotion [Annexure-1].
04. It was also the case of the petitioner, the petitioner’s name was there in the seniority list and he was eligible for promotion both in Normal Channel as well as First Track channel. In the Normal Channel as per circular dated 27.11.2024 there were in total 26 posts and for the First Track Channel in total there were 26 numbers of posts. In the said circular the guidelines for promotions were indicated. Reference was placed upon the said Memo 27.11.2024 [Annexure-3].
05. It was further mentioned by Learned Senior Counsel that for promotion under First Track Channel total 100 marks was fixed and out of 100 marks 50 marks was kept for Written Examination, 20 marks for Interview and 30 marks for Performance Appraisal Reports. It was further submitted that the Performance Appraisal Report originates from the process whereby each employee submits a self appraisal report to the designated authority and the maximum marks allotted each year is 100. But the respondents relied upon certain Annual Performance Report (APR) while assessing the performance of the petitioner and according to the petitioner, the respondents never communicated the marks awarded under the APRs except for the year, 2024 in which the petitioner was awarded 88 out of 100. But due to non communication of the previous APRs the respondents-Bank denied the petitioner an opportunity to represent or to seek review.
06. Rather the respondents-Bank by a circular dated 05.02.2025 vide HRD Circular Letter No.06 of 2025 [Annexure-6] took an arbitrary decision and thereafter the petitioner submitted online RTI application seeking certain information [Annexure-9]. In response to the application, it was informed by the respondents-Bank that there were no specific guidelines to their regulation regarding the display of APR. Rather advised the petitioner to share any clause/guideline in this regard [Annexure-11].
07. The petitioner submitted appeal [Annexure-12] on 11.09.2025 and thereafter submitted another representation on 24.06.2025 [Annexure-13] and in response to that it was intimated by the Bank that the verdict of the Supreme Court is based on the merit of the specific case and in the Bank APR marks have not been displayed which was totally contrary to the settled principle of law and in this regard reliance was placed upon the Judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Dr. Indira Saranath v. Union of India & Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 943 wherein in Para No.17, Hon’ble the Apex Court observed as under:
“17. From the aforesaid discussion, three factors are found to be relevant. Firstly, the appellant was not supplied the various entries made in her ACRs despite her request made prior to her assessment by the SC. Secondly, the service records of the appellant came to be weeded out despite pendency of judicial proceedings initiated by her on the same subject matter and thirdly, the award of points in a fraction when no such enabling provision is brought on record nor the communication dated 22.05.1996 provides for the same. These relevant factors borne from the record would have to be cumulatively assessed while considering the entitlement of the appellant.
Taking these aspects together, in our view, prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the appellant by the non-communication of her ACRs. We have found that the decision in Dev Dutt (supra) merely recognises the principle that non-communication of entries in an ACR results in civil consequences. Here, the appellant had been demanding copies of her ACRs not only with the respondents but had made such prayer before the Tribunal and thereafter also before the High Court. On account of inadvertent weeding out of her service records, the same could not be produced even before this Court. The respondents accept that the weeding out of such records was inadvertent despite pendency of judicial proceedings in that regard. Coupled with the fact that the appellant was assessed on the basis of 19.5 points which was not provided in the promotion policy of the Railways dated 22.05.1996, in our view, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the respondents in that regard.
To reiterate, various factors referred to above when taken cumulatively, it is clear that the appellant has been prejudiced by the non-supply of her ACRs, destruction of her service records and award of points in fraction. Though the appellant was assessed under the prevailing promotion policy of the Railways, we find sufficient material on record to hold that she was not treated fairly in the matter. Her candidature could have been considered in a better manner, if she had been supplied her ACRs enabling her to seek redressal, if she was not satisfied by the entries therein and her service records had not been weeded out. We, therefore, find the grievance as raised by the appellant to be justified.”
08. Relying upon the same, the petitioner prayed for allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned circular dated 05.02.2025 and to direct the respondents-Bank to consider the promotion of the petitioner.
09. The respondents-Bank have submitted their counter-affidavit denying the assertions of the petitioner in the writ petition and in Para No.13 of the counter-affidavit the following assertions have been made and finally the respondents-Bank by the counter-affidavit urged for dismissal of the writ petition:-
“13. That, in response to the averments made in Paragraph-11 (though in Writ Petition number is inserted as 12 instead of 11) of the Writ Petition under reply is vehemently disputed and denied by the answering Respondent Bank and most respectfully stated that the petitioner was the candidate for promotion for 2024-25 for the post of Officer Scale-I to Officer Scale-II and the circular was issued on 05.02.2025 for submission of APAR in a prescribed format from the respective Officials of the Bank for assessment. The Petitioner had submitted appraisal accordingly for 2023-24 in HRMS and awarded 88 marks for that year, but did not submitted preceding to 2023-24 and as such he was under the category of exparte default rating mark of 59 for each year. If the petitioner considered that the circular dated 05.02.2025 does not emanate from any rule or does not have any statutory, so as to why the petitioner did not submit any letter to the Bank at that point of time, even as to why the petitioner failed to lodge writ petition at that point of time (i.e the initial time of promotion process). He did not submit or lodge the complaint/Writ Petition at that point of time as because, he thought that he would be get successes in the promotional process. After non-success in the promotional examination, the Petitioner wake up from the bed after a long gap of completion of the said promotion process, lodged this petition only to avail a litigation chance by mentioning the irrational and statement which is liable to be dismissed on its threshold. The Petitioner had lodged this case to shift his negligence upon the Bank which is liable to be dismissed.
The Respondent Bank further most respectfully stated that the Bank used to give sufficient opportunity to its officials by issuing circular/letter to its officials to submit their Appraisal within a prescribed period before their respective immediate authority and due to administrative requirement of the Bank, it is cautioned in the said circular/letter that if the same is not submitted within prescribed period, the defaulting officials would be fallen under the category of exparte default rating mark of 59. Therefore, no arbitrary decision is made, it is requirement for the Official to submit the self appraisal in time in view of expeditious the process. The Petitioner did not submit the APR for last preceding years except 2023-24 and resultantly he was fallen under the category of exparte default rating mark of 59 for preceding years.”
10. Admittedly, based upon the performance report of 2023-24, the respondents authority awarded 88 marks and for the preceding 4 years took ex-parte decision and assigned default rating marks of 59.
11. In the rejoinder, the petitioner stated that he submitted APAR form for the year 2022 which was duly acknowledged by the respondents-Bank. Thus, prima facie it appears that the respondents-authority either knowingly or intentionally suppressed to communicate the Performance Appraisal Report or after receipt of the same or intentionally did not consider the same because in the affidavit it has been specifically denied that the petitioner did not submit appraisal for the preceding years prior to 2023-24 but from the rejoinder supported by [Annexure-15], prima facie it appears that the respondents department received the APR for the year ended on 31.03.2022 which is contradictory to each other. Furthermore, it was also submitted that circulars were communicated but in this regard no documentary evidence could be produced. Rather it was surprising how the respondents-Bank solicited instructions from the petitioner to share any guidelines and calculated the rating on average at the time of considering his promotion which in my considered view was contrary to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforenoted case.
12. Thus, it appears that the decision of the respondents-Bank is contrary to the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforenoted case. The respondents-Bank has violated the norms and arbitrarily considered the average of APAR of the petitioner for the preceding 4 (four) years prior to 2023-24 which was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the stand taken by the respondents-Bank in their counter-affidavit in respect of acceptance of APR for the year 2022. Thus, it appears that the respondents-Bank either intentionally or through bonafide mistake did not consider the appraisal report to the petitioner for the last 4 (four) years prior to 2023-24 illegally for which it appears that the interference of the Court is required.
13. It is expected that the respondents-Bank shall consider APR score under the self appraisal on the basis of APR form for the preceding 04 (four) years prior to 2023-24 without taking into consideration the average of 59 as stated ex-parte and to consider the grading accordingly. Because as observed by the department that the petitioner secured 88 out of 100 for the year 2024, so it is clear that, the case of the petitioner could come under the consideration of promotion if the APR for the previous years were taken into consideration properly.
14. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed.
The respondents-Bank is asked to consider the APR for the preceding 04 (four) years prior to 2023-24 and thereafter to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion if he is otherwise found suitable if any by creating supernumerary post in pursuance of the circular issued by the respondents-Bank on 27.11.2024 and to communicate the decision within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of passing of this judgment. It is further ordered that, if for any reason the respondents-Bank does not maintain the APR forms of the preceding years in that case the respondents-Bank may obtain afresh the same from the petitioner accordingly for appraisal.
With this observation, this present writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
