Court holds vague adverse remarks recorded without basis or hearing invalid; directs they should not affect employee’s promotion during DPC
Jaipur: In a significant interim order impacting thousands of government employees, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that an “Unsatisfactory” entry in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR), if recorded without clear reasons or without granting a hearing to the employee, cannot be used to deny promotion.
The Court made it clear that any adverse remark lacking specific grounds and recorded without following due process cannot be treated as valid for the purpose of career progression.
The order was passed by the single bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman while hearing a petition filed by Dinesh Kumar Dotaniya vs State of Rajasthan & Others.
Key Observations by the Court
The Court observed that the “Unsatisfactory” entry in the APAR was vague and unsupported by concrete reasons, with crucial columns left unfilled by the Reporting and Reviewing Authorities; the adverse remark was recorded solely by the Accepting Authority, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before such an entry was made.
The Court emphasized that any entry adversely affecting an employee’s career must be made only after giving the employee a fair opportunity to present their case. Failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.
Relief on DPC
Granting interim relief, the Court directed that:
If a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is convened, the “Unsatisfactory” entry under challenge shall not come in the way of considering the petitioner’s promotion.
This direction ensures that the petitioner’s promotion prospects remain unaffected until the matter is finally decided.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a resident of Dausa district, challenged the adverse entry in his APAR, arguing that it was recorded arbitrarily and without recommendation from the competent authority.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Mirza Faisal Baig contended that:
The entry lacked any supporting material or justification, The prescribed evaluation process was not followed and The Reporting and Reviewing Authorities did not record their assessments.
Instead, the Accepting Authority directly marked the performance as “Unsatisfactory,” which was contrary to established rules and procedure.