Meghalaya High Court
Date Of Decision: 22.08.2025 vs The Union Of India Represented By The on 22 August, 2025
Author: H.S.Thangkhiew
Bench: H.S.Thangkhiew
2025:MLHC:751
Serial No.08
Supp. List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C). No. 83 of 2024
Date of Decision: 22.08.2025
Gouranga Debbarma Sub (GD)
Son of Shri Dhirmani Debbarma.
...Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The Union of India represented by the
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Shillong.
2. The Director General,
Assam Rifles,
HQ, DGAR,
Laitkor, Shillong.
3. The Additional Director General,
Assam Rifles,
HQ, DGAR,
Laitkor, Shillong.
4. The Commandant,
30, Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO.
5. The Col (Records)
HQ, DGAR, Laitkor, Shillong.
6. The Brigadier (Personnel)
HQ, DGAR, Laitkor, Shillong.
1
2025:MLHC:751
7. Umesh Chandra Singh, Sub (GD)
43rd Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO,
Kashiram Basti (Firing Range)
Nagaland - 79115.
8. Raj Kumar Manjhi, Sub (GD)
43rd Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO,
Kashiram Basti (Firing Range)
Nagaland - 79115.
9. Raghubir Singh, Sub (GD)
43rd Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO,
Kashiram Basti (Firing Range)
Nagaland - 79115.
10. Ram Datt Singh, Sub (GD)
43rd Assam Rifles, C/o 99 APO,
Kashiram Basti (Firing Range)
Nagaland - 79115.
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.S.Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Applicant(s) : Mr. M.L.Nongpiur, Adv.
Ms. A.Ksoo, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R.Debnath, CGC.
Ms. B.Malngiang, Adv.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
2
2025:MLHC:751
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with a speaking order dated 30-
11-2023, passed by the respondents in pursuance to a judgment and order of
this Court dated 24-08-2023, in WP(C). No. 293 of 2022, is before this Court
assailing the same on the following grounds:
(i) The first ground is that though the representation of the writ
petitioner was confined only to the relevant years of 2016-
2017, the respondents in refusing to upgrade the ACR, had
referred to the years 2006-2007, which are not to be taken into
consideration.
(ii) The second ground taken is that the Initiating Officer (IO) and
the Reviewing Officer (RO), were the same persons who in the
earlier assessment of 2015-2016 and subsequent 2016-2017 are
the same and that the downgrading was without any
explanation or reason.
2. The case of the writ petitioner therefore, is that the non-consideration
for upgrading not being based on any cogent reasons or circumstances, he
has been deprived of the promotion at the relevant point of time.
3
2025:MLHC:751
3. Mr. M.L.Nongpiur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that due to the non-communication of the adverse entries or grading points,
for the year 2016-2017, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this
Court being WP(C). No. 293 of 2022, which was disposed of by an order
dated 24-08-2023. Learned counsel further submits that as per the order
dated 24-08-2023, the respondents had communicated the adverse entries in
the ACR of 2016-2017, and the petitioner on receipt of the same, had
submitted a representation praying for upgradation of the uncommunicated
ACR with a further prayer for retrospective promotion w.e.f. 02-11-2021, as
also for restoration of seniority. Learned counsel submits that however, the
respondents by the impugned speaking order dated 30-11-2023, have not
considered the prayer of the petitioner and have rejected the same on the
ground that the writ petitioner had been graded ‘Average (2 points)’ in the
ACRs successively for the assessment year 2007 and 2008 while in the rank
of Havildar (General Duty). Learned counsel has vehemently argued that
what has been resorted to by the respondents is impermissible in view of the
fact that the requirement for consideration in the case of the petitioner is
limited to 5(five) assessment periods i.e. from 2016-2020. A further
submission is made that though the ACR of the writ petitioner had been
completed by the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer in the years
4
2025:MLHC:751
2017, the endorsement by the Senior Reviewing Officer was done only in
the year 2019, after a gap of two years. He therefore, submits that the
assessment not being made on any rational basis, the same is liable to be
interfered with. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed
reliance in the case of Union of India & Ors. vrs. G.R.Meghwal 2022 SCC
Online SC 1291.
4. Mr. R.Debnath, learned CGC for the respondents, in reply, has
submitted that as per the directions of this Court, the respondents had on
receipt of the representation from the petitioner, considered and passed the
speaking order. Learned CGC has placed heavy reliance on the directions
of this Court with regard to taking into account the earlier track record to
justify the non-upgradation of the grade of the writ petitioner on account of
his earlier performance for the year 2007-2008, where he was graded ‘2’.
He submits that as in these two years, the performance of the writ petitioner
was below the prescribed benchmark, the respondents did not consider it fit
to upgrade the ACR. Learned CGC has then referred to the affidavit and
submits that there is no provision that exists in the Record Office Instruction
(ROI) for review of an ACR once finalised. The impugned order, he
submits, being in pursuance to, and as per the orders of the Court, has
addressed the issue and has also taken into account the past track record of
the petitioner for the assessment years 2007-2008, which has thus prevented
5
2025:MLHC:751
any upgradation. He therefore submits, there being no infirmity in the
impugned order, no interference is called for by this Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also having
examined the materials on record, it is noted that the issue in question, is
whether there is any justification for the respondents to take into
consideration the performance of the writ petitioner beyond the assessment
years which have to be considered for the purposes of promotion. In the
instant case, it is seen that the promotion in consideration is from Naib
Subedar to Subedar and as per the “Benchmark for Performance
Appraisal for Promotion and Financial Upgradation under MACPs
dated 29-12-2016,” the same requires all five ACRs from the years 2016-
2020, which should be not below ‘very good’, and (above average) 7 points.
The further prescription is that the same should be the benchmark in all five
reports i.e. ‘7’. A perusal of the ACR for the relevant assessment year i.e.
2016-2017 reflects that the petitioner had been graded at 7 points by the
Initiating Officer on 20-11-2017, with the remarks ‘Individual is physically
fit and robust. He enjoys good command and control over his subordinates
and is dependable’. The Reviewing Officer thereafter, had graded the
petitioner at 5 points without any negative remarks and had recorded ‘A
physically fit JCO who execute assigned task with dedication’, the same was
on 30-12-2017. The ACR of the petitioner was then endorsed by the Senior
6
2025:MLHC:751
Reviewing Officer (SRO) after nearly two years on 27-08-2019 who entered
these remarks ‘A high average JCO. I agree with the assessment of the RO.
The IO is liberal in his assessment.’ It is thus seen that the petitioner from
being graded 7 points by the Initiating Officer, had been downgraded and
the same was endorsed by the Senior Reviewing Officer. It is also to be noted
that no remarks have been noted in the report as to the reasons for
downgrading of the grades. Further, an interesting point to note in the
present case is that the Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer were the
same Officers for the preceding assessment year i.e. 2015-2016, who had
graded the writ petitioner at 7 points and recommended him for promotion.
6. In this backdrop, this Court is now to examine the speaking order
passed by the respondents as to whether the same had taken into
consideration all the relevant factors. Firstly, is the fact that apart from the
assessment year 2016-2017, the petitioner for the year 2015-2016 and from
2017 onwards till 2021, had been given a grading of 7 points, in other words,
recommended for promotion, and infact, it was only the assessment that was
done in the year 2016-2017, that had prevented him from being considered
for promotion at the relevant time i.e. 2021. The impugned order, it appears,
refusing the upgradation to the petitioner was passed solely on the ground
that the writ petitioner had been graded ‘average (2 points)’ in the ACRs
successively for the assessment year 2007-2008 while in the rank of
7
2025:MLHC:751
Havildar General Duty. Further, at para 7 of the impugned order thereof,
though the benchmark clearly prescribes the relevant years to be from 2016-
2020, it has been recorded that the performance of the writ petitioner during
2014-2015 is also below the benchmark. Though the learned CGC has tried
to take shelter of the orders of this Court by referring to para 7 of the order
dated 24-08-2023, passed in WP(C). No. 293 of 2022, which reads as
follows:
“7. It is further provided that should the entries be
upgraded in consideration of the representation taking
into account the petitioner’s earlier track record, the
respondent authorities shall constitute a review DPC for
grant of the consequential reliefs, it any on the basis of
the above. The entire exercise shall be completed within
a period of 5(five) months from the date of receipt of this
representation.”
A perusal of the same however, will show that the directions are for
consideration of the representation of the writ petitioner taking into account
the petitioner’s track record. This would necessarily therefore mean that the
respondents were to consider the representation in accordance with the
benchmark as given in Memorandum dated 29-12-2016 (Annexure-10 of the
writ petition) and not to refer to the assessment years which were not to be
taken into consideration. Further, it is not understood as to how the
assessment year 2014-2015 has also found place in the impugned order
without any explanation or reason. The other aspect which has also been
8
2025:MLHC:751
raised by the writ petitioner with regard to the same Initiating Officer and
Reviewing Officer for two years giving grades in variance has also not been
taken into consideration by the respondents while considering the
upgradation of the petitioner.
7. In these circumstances, it is seen that the speaking order dated 30-11-
2023, has not addressed the representation of the petitioner in its totality and
as such, is set aside with a direction that the respondents, as per the
observation made in this judgment, reconsider the representation of the writ
petitioner against the benchmark prescribed for promotion to the said post
for the relevant years of assessment. It is expected that the said exercise shall
be completed within a period of 8(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of
this order by the respondents.
8. With the above directions, the matter stands closed and disposed of.
Judge
Signature Not Verified 9
Digitally signed by
SAMANTHA ANNA LIYA
RYNJAH
Date: 2025.08.22 05:31:47 IST