Judges can be denied promotion citing adverse ACRs: SC

New Delhi, January 15
The Supreme Court has ruled that judges can be denied promotion or extension in service on the basis of adverse remarks in the annual confidential reports (ACRs).

The remarks in ACRs “do enable” the authority to assess the comparative merit of judges while deciding promotions applying the merit-cum-seniority criteria, a Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and HL Gokhale clarified in a verdict last week.

The Bench made the observation while dismissing the appeal of NC Das, who was a member of the Tripura Judicial Service (Grade II) holding the post of Civil Judge (Senior Division), North Tripura.

Das, who retired on December 31, 2006 at the age of 58, had pleaded for quashing a Gauhati High Court memo issued on June 7, 2005 denying him promotion under the Assured Career Progress.

Das had contended that he was wrongly denied the promotion in July 2003 although his juniors were accorded promotion. His case for promotion ought to have been considered under recruitment and service rules relating to Grade I and II of the Tripura Judicial Service Rules 1974, he argued.

Besides being superseded, he was also denied service extension till the age of 60 despite the fact that the superannuation age stood enhanced to 60 years.

Rejecting this plea, the SC pointed out that giving extension in service was the discretion of the Guahati HC. Citing a communication between the HC Registrar and the Tripura Law Department, the SC said the HC had in fact considered the issue of extension and found that he “did not deserve” to be recommended for service till the age of 60.

The apex court noted that ACR of Das for the year 2000 clearly mentioned that “he was not yet fit for promotion. Similar remarks have been recorded in 2001 and 2002 ACRs. Thus, in last three years immediately preceding the date of consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion, his ACRs show that he was not found fit for promotion.”

Based on the remarks in the ACRs for 2000, 2001 and 2002, if he had been “denied promotion in July 2003, such action can hardly be faulted,” the Bench reasoned.