2026:HHC:30241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3087 of 2025 Decided on: 22.07.2026 Rajesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Amrick Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Ashwani Chawla, Advocate, for respondent No.3. None for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing and setting aside the Annexure P-2 whereby the petitioner have been debar for the post of Superintendent Grade-11 by review DPC held on 25.04.2023. b) Impugned action on part of respondent by non- communicated in the adverse entry in the ACR's for the year 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 graded as average vide Annexure P-4. P-5, P-6 and P-7 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. c) That Writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Superintendent Grade-II from due date i.e. 02.01.2022 the day on which the junior to petitioner have been ordered to be promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade-II with 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:30241 all consequential benefits. d) That writ of Mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to modify the order dated 02.01.2022 by opening the sealed cover and including the name of the petitioner in the promotion list. e) The respondents may further be directed to rectify/modify the seniority list of Superintendent Grade-II after including the name of present petitioner as per his seniority.” 2. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Department of Fisheries in the year 1991. Thereafter, he gained promotions and in the year 2013, he was promoted as a Senior Assistant. He was charge-sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules in the year 2021. On account of this charge-sheet, when the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 24.03.2022, for considering the Senior Assistants for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II, his case was kept in a sealed cover and it was opened on 25.04.2023. After the departmental proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner came to an end, he was exonerated and thereafter, the sealed cover was opened and he was found unfit for promotion. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 3. One of the contentions of the petitioner in assailing the act of the DPC of not considering him suitable for promotion against the higher post is that the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) which 3 2026:HHC:30241 were taken into consideration by the DPC were not communicated to him. 4. In order to ascertain this fact, when this case was listed in the Court on 29.06.2026, the following order was passed:- “Heard for sometime. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to produce the proceedings of the DPC, which was convened on 24.03.2022 including the sealed cover, in which the recommendations of the said DPC qua the petitioner were kept. List on 13.07.2026.” 5. Thereafter, on 13.07.2026, the following order was passed:- “Mr. Yash Pal Singh, Senior Assistant, O/o Directorate of Fishries, H.P., Bilaspur is present in person along with the record. In compliance to the last order passed by this Court, learned Additional Advocate General made available for the perusal of this Court proceedings of the DPC held on 24.03.2022 including the sealed cover. Perusal thereof, demonstrates that the merit of the petitioner for promotion was considered on the basis of ACRs for the years 2020- 21, 2019-20, 2018-2019, 2017-2016 and 2016-2017. In all the aforesaid five years’ ACRs, the petitioner was assessed as “average” and on the basis of these ACRs, the DPC declared the petitioner to be unfit for promotion. The contention of the petitioner is that these five years’ ACRs, on the basis of which the merit of the petitioner was assessed was never conveyed to him. Learned Additional Advocate General on instructions submits that it is the matter of the record that ACRs w.e.f. 4 2026:HHC:30241 2016-17 to 2020-2021 were never conveyed to the petitioner. His statement is taken on record. List for consideration on 22nd July, 2026.” 6. The above clearly demonstrates that admittedly, the ACRs, which were taken into consideration by the DPC and on the basis of which, the petitioner was held to be unfit for promotion to a non-selection post, were never communicated to him. 7. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dev Dutt Versus Union of India and Others, (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 725, has been pleased to hold that non-communication of entries in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant has civil consequences because it may affect his chances for promotion or other benefits, and hence, non-communication would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “35. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases. 36. In the present case, we are developing the principles of natural justice by holding that fairness and transparency in public administration requires that all entries (whether poor, fair, average, good or very good) in the Annual Confidential Report of a public servant, whether in civil, judicial, police or any other State service (except the military), must be communicated to him within a reasonable period so that he can make a representation for its upgradation. This in our opinion is the correct legal position even though there may be no 5 2026:HHC:30241 Rule/G.O. requiring communication of the entry, or even if there is a Rule/G.O. prohibiting it, because the principle of non-arbitrariness in State action as envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution in our opinion requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders. 37. We further hold that when the entry is communicated to him the public servant should have a right to make a representation against the entry to the concerned authority, and the concerned authority must decide the representation in a fair manner and within a reasonable period. We also hold that the representation must be decided by an authority higher than the one who gave the entry, otherwise the likelihood is that the representation will be summarily rejected without adequate consideration as it would be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar. All this would be conducive to fairness and transparency in public administration, and would result in fairness to public servants. The State must be a model employer, and must act fairly towards its employees. Only then would good governance be possible. 38. We, however, make it clear that the above directions will not apply to military officers because the position for them is different as clarified by this Court in Union of India vs. Major Bahadur Singh 2006 (1) SCC 368. But they will apply to employees of statutory authorities, public sector corporations and other instrumentalities of the State (in addition to Government servants). 39. In Canara Bank vs. V. K. Awasthy 2005 (6) SCC 321, this Court held that the concept of natural justice has 6 2026:HHC:30241 undergone a great deal of change in recent years. As observed in para 8 of the said judgment: "Natural justice is another name for common-sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons. But they are principles ingrained into the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way. Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values". In para 12 of the said judgment it was observed: “12.What is meant by the term "principles of natural justice" is not easy to determine. Lord Summer (then Hamilton, L.J.) in R. v. Local Govt. Board (1914) 1 KB 160:83 LJKB 86 described the phrase as sadly lacking in precision. In General Council of Medical Education & Registration of U.K. v. Spackman (1943) AC 627: (1943) 2 All ER 337, Lord Wright observed that it was not desirable to attempt "to force it into any Procrustean bed". 40. In State of Maharashtra vs. Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 587, it was observed (vide para 39): "In our opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play". 41. In our opinion, 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 7 2026:HHC:30241 other benefits (as already discussed above). Hence, such non-communication would be arbitrary, and as such violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 42. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that both the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Division Bench erred in law. Hence, we set aside the judgment of the Learned Single Judge as well as the impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench. 43. We are informed that the appellant has already retired from service. However, if his representation for upgradation of the `good' entry is allowed, he may benefit in his pension and get some arrears. Hence we direct that the 'good' entry of 1993-94 be communicated to the appellant forthwith and he should be permitted to make a representation against the same praying for its upgradation. If the upgradation is allowed, the appellant should be considered forthwith for promotion as Superintending Engineer retrospectively and if he is promoted he will get the benefit of higher pension and the balance of arrears of pay along with 8% per annum interest. 44. We, therefore, direct that the 'good' entry be communicated to the appellant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On being communicated, the appellant may make the representation, if he so chooses, against the said entry within two months thereafter and the said representation will be decided within two months thereafter. If his entry is upgraded the appellant shall be considered for promotion retrospectively by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) within three 8 2026:HHC:30241 months thereafter and if the appellant gets selected for promotion retrospectively, he should be given higher pension with arrears of pay and interest @ 8% per annum till the date of payment. 45. With these observations this appeal is allowed. No costs.” 8. Therefore, in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as it was incumbent upon the Department to have had communicated the ACRs to the petitioner and in the absence of the ACRs having been communicated to him, said ACRs could not have been taken into consideration by the DPC for considering the suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-2. The recommendations of the DPC dated 24.03.2022 and 25.04.2023, in terms whereof, the petitioner was found to be unfit for promotion, are held to be bad and are accordingly set aside. It is further ordered that the un- communicated ACRs will be made available to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall file his objections thereto within four weeks from the date of the receipt thereof. The Reviewing Authority shall thereafter review the ACRs on the basis of the objections filed to the same by the petitioner and thereafter, a review DPC shall be held adjudge to the suitability of the petitioner for promotion against the post in issue as on 24.03.2022 and in case the petitioner is found eligible for promotion, then consequences to ensue. 9 2026:HHC:30241 9. The contention of learned Counsel for the private respondent qua delays and latches is being rejected by this Court. In the present case, firstly, the cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner when the DPC was convened on 24.03.2022 and the case of the petitioner was kept in sealed cover. Thereafter, the cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner after he was exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in terms of Annexure P-13, dated 15.02.2023. The cause of action again accrued in his favour when he was declared unfit for promotion to the post of Superintendent Grade-II by the DPC convened on 25.04.2023 on the basis of un-communicated ACRs. The cause of action again accrued in favour of the petitioner when the earlier writ petition filed by him, i.e. CWP No.11668 of 2024, titled Rajesh Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, was decided on 21.10.2024 and liberty was given to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in accordance with law as in the earlier petition the petitioner had not claimed any relief with regard to the entries contained in these ACRs. In this backdrop, it cannot be said that the present petition is hit by delays and latches as has been argued by learned Counsel for the private respondent. 10. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 22, 2026 (Rishi)