Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4822-4826 OF 2007

P. Sivanandi ….Appellant  

versus

Rajeev Kumar & Ors.             …Respondents

       WITH

                                           CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4827 OF 2007

P. Sivanandi     ….Appellant  

                              versus

The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.   …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. These  appeals  raise  a  narrow  question  for  consideration,  namely,

whether the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer forms a part of

his ‘service record’ and whether it could be ignored for the purposes of his

promotion merely on the ground that it was written after some delay. In our

opinion, the ACR of an officer forms a part of his service record and he

cannot be prejudiced merely because his superior officers delayed writing it.

The judgment and order to the contrary passed by  the  Madras  High  Court

on  27th October,  2006  in  W.P. Nos. 15791-15795 of 2006 does not lay        C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 1 of 9

Page 2

down the correct law.1

2. As mentioned above, the issue involved in this case is rather narrow

and it is not necessary to detail all the facts of the case.   Suffice it to say that

the appellant Sivanandi was directly recruited on or about 6th May, 1985 as a

Deputy Superintendent of Police with the Tamil Nadu Police.  

3. A  Select  Committee  constituted  under  the  Indian  Police  Service

(Appointment  by  Promotion)  Regulations,  1955  considered  Sivanandi,

amongst others, for promotion in 1994-95 to the Indian Police Service. The

Annual  Confidential  Reports  (ACRs)  required  to  be  considered  for  his

promotion related to the period from 01.04.1989 to 31.03.1994.   

4. The Select Committee graded Sivanandi as ‘Good’ when it met on 7th

March, 1995.  This grading was apparently arrived at on the basis of his

service records minus his ACR for 1992-93 which was missing and minus

his  ACR for  a  part  of  the period of  1993-94 that  is  from 01.04.1993 to

15.07.1993 which had not been written.  He was however, considered in the

subsequent year 1995-96 and promoted to the IPS with the year of allotment

being 1993.

5. On a challenge having been raised to the selection to the Indian Police

Service by some aggrieved officers, an original application was filed before

the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), which set aside the selection

1 P. Sivanandi v. Rajiv Kumar, MANU/TN/9878/2006        C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 2 of 9

Page 3

for  1994-95.  The  Tribunal  then  directed  a  fresh  selection  process.  The

opinion expressed by the Tribunal was accepted by this Court by an order

dated  20th February, 2002  in  Civil  Appeal  Nos.  1299-1305  of  1999  etc.

(Christopher Nelson v. U.P.S.C. & Ors.).

6. In view of the above facts,  a Review Select Committee constituted

under  the  said  Regulations  met  on  24th March,  1999 and considered the

eligible officers including Sivanandi for promotion to the IPS as on the year

1994-95.  By this time, the missing ACR of Sivanandi for the year 1992-93

had been located.  Additionally, the ACR for the above period 01.04.1993 to

15.07.1993 which could not be placed before the Select Committee in its

meeting held on 7th March, 1995 was also available.  In fact, it transpires that

the ACR for that period of about three and a half months was written by the

Reporting Officer on 14.11.1994; it was reviewed by the Reviewing Officer

on 19.01.1996; it was accepted by the Accepting Authority on 27.01.1996.

These dates explain why the ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993

could not be placed before the Select Committee when it met on 7th March,

1995.

7. Be that as it may, in view of the consideration of Sivanadi’s ACRs

including  the  ACR  for  1992-93  and  for  the  period  from  01.04.1993  to

15.07.1993 he was graded ‘Very Good’ and promoted to the IPS with the

year of allotment being 1991.

      C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 3 of 9

Page 4

8. Feeling aggrieved by Sivanandi’s selection,  the private  respondents

before us  approached the  Tribunal  through a  batch  of  applications  being

O.A. No. 595-598 of 2005 and O.A. No. 780 of 2005.

9. By a  common order dated 5th May, 2006 the Tribunal  allowed the

original applications filed by the private respondents on the finding that the

ACR for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 was invalid and could not

have been considered by the Review Select Committee since it was written

beyond  the  period  prescribed  by  the  State  Government  and  therefore

Sivanandi’s  selection  was  vitiated.   Significantly,  the  Tribunal  held  in

Sivanandi’s favour that the earlier missing ACR for 1992-93 which was now

made available was rightly considered by the Review Select Committee.

10. Feeling aggrieved by the limited adverse finding against him by the

Tribunal, Sivanandi preferred W.P. Nos. 15791-15795 of 2006 in the Madras

High  Court  challenging  the  common  order  of  the  Tribunal  vitiating  his

selection  by  excluding  from  consideration  the  ACR  for  the  period

01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993.

11. One  of  the  submissions  made  by  the  Union  Public  Service

Commission (for short ‘UPSC’) to justify the selection by the Review Select

Commission  before  the  High  Court  was  that  the  ACR  for  the  period

01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 could validly have been considered by the Review

Select  Committee.   Alternatively,  it  was  submitted  that  even  if  it  were        C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 4 of 9

Page 5

excluded from consideration,  it  would make no difference  to  the  overall

grading of Sivanandi and that it was the earlier missing ACR of 1992-93 that

resulted in Sivanandi being graded ‘Very Good’ as against the earlier grading

of  ‘Good’.   As  such,  the  promotion  of  Sivanandi  to  the  IPS  was  fully

justified in law and also on merit,  even after  excluding the ACR for the

period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993.  

12. Unfortunately, the High Court did not accept Sivanandi’s contention

or that of the UPSC and upheld the view expressed by the Tribunal.  It is

under these circumstances that Sivanandi is now before us.

13. It is been brought to our notice by learned counsel for Sivanandi that

the issue raised in these appeals is  no longer  res integra  in view of the

decision of this Court in G. Mohanasundaram v. R. Nanthagopal & Ors.2

14. In the aforesaid decision, the provisions of the Indian Administrative

Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)  Regulations,  1955  were  under

consideration.   The  relevant  provisions  are  in  pari  materia  with  the

provisions  of  the  Indian  Police  Service  (Appointment  by  Promotion)

Regulations, 1955.

15. It was held by this Court that in terms of the IAS Regulations, the

UPSC is obliged to consider the service record of a candidate who is eligible

2 (2014) 13 SCC 172        C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 5 of 9

Page 6

for promotion and it is on the basis of the overall relative assessment of the

service record that an eligible officer may be graded.  Consequently, it is

quite clear that the entire service record of the eligible candidates is required

to be sent to the Select Committee for consideration.  For this reason, the

ACRs of Sivanandi for 1992-93 and for the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993

were required to be considered by the Review Select Committee. Regulation

5 of  the Indian  Police  Service (Appointment  by Promotion)  Regulations,

1955 reads as follows:-

“5.  Preparation of list of suitable officers – (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of  the  State  Police  Service,  as  held  by  them  to  the  suitable  for promotion  to  the  Service.   The  number  of  members  of  the  State Police Service to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central  Government  in  consultation  with  the  State  Government concerned, and shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts available for them under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules.  The date and venue of the meeting of the Committee to make the Selection shall be determined by the Commission:

Provided that ………..

(2)…………..

(2-A)……….

(3)…………..

(3-A)………

(4) The Selection Committee shall classify the eligible officers as ‘outstanding’  ‘very good’  ‘Good’ or ‘Unfit’ as the case may be, on an overall relative assessment of their service records.

(5)……….

(6)……….”

      C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 6 of 9

Page 7

16. In  the  above-cited  decision,  one  of  the  submissions  made  by

Mohanasundaram in this Court was that the State Government had declared

his ACR invalid merely because it had been written beyond the period of

nine months.  It was submitted that the ACR could not be held invalid in the

absence of any limitation prescribed under any rule or guidelines.

17. The State of Tamil Nadu sought to rely upon a Government Order (or

GO) dated 4th April, 2007 to deny to the candidate the benefit of the ACR

written beyond the period of nine months.  Although the GO dated 4 th April,

2007 was issued after the decision in the impugned judgment and order, the

principle laid down by this Court on the interpretation of that GO would be

equally  applicable  and  one  of  the  principles  so  laid  down  is  that  the

prescription of a period for writing an ACR is not mandatory but directory.

That being the position, the ACR of Sivanandi for the period 01.04.1993 to

15.07.1993  could  validly  have  been  considered  by  the  Review  Select

Committee even if it was written after some delay and there was no error in

its consideration.

18. This is what this Court had to say:

“In the guidelines issued by the State Government, there is nothing to declare any annual confidential report invalid. The period of 90 days prescribed therein is not mandatory but directory. The 90 days period is also to be counted from the date of demitting office by the officer who writes the ACR.

      C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 7 of 9

Page 8

In  view of  the  discussion above,  we hold that  in  terms of Regulation 5(4) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 it was incumbent upon the State Government to forward complete service records of all the eligible candidates including the first respondent to UPSC for considering them for promotion to the IAS cadre. Withholding of ACRs of the year 2003-2009 of the first respondent on a wrong presumption that they  were  invalid,  is  illegal  and  fatal  in  the  case  of  the  first respondent  towards  his  appointment  to  the  post  of  Indian Administrative Service. The aforesaid fact though came to the notice of UPSC which sought clarification from the Government of Tamil Nadu, the State Government misled UPSC which resulted in wrong assessment of service records of the first respondent in violation of Regulation 5(4) read with Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.”

19. That  apart,  the  fact  that  the  ACR  of  Sivanandi  was  written  and

reviewed by his  superior  authorities  after  a  considerable  delay obviously

cannot put him to any disadvantage.  The writing and review of his ACR was

beyond his control and we do not see any rational basis on which Sivanandi

could be disadvantaged merely because his superior officers were lax in the

discharge of their responsibilities.

20. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court

while  upholding  the  view  expressed  by  the  Tribunal  was  in  error  in

concluding that the Review Select Committee could not consider the ACR of

Sivanandi for  the period 01.04.1993 to 15.07.1993 and to this  extent  the

decision of the High Court is set aside.

21. The question that now remains is whether on a consideration of the

entire service record Sivanandi was entitled to be promoted to the IPS with

      C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 8 of 9

Page 9

the year of allotment as 1991. There is nothing to suggest that the Review

Select Committee with the UPSC did not consider the case of Sivanandi for

promotion on merit or that the view of the Review Select Committee was

perverse in any manner.  That being so we do not think it proper to interfere

with the decision arrived at by the Review Select Committee with the UPSC

on the basis of the service record of Sivanandi more so when it  was the

submission of the UPSC that what tilted the scales in his favour was his

ACR for the period 1992-93 which was earlier missing and which was not

taken into consideration on an earlier occasion.

22. Under  these  circumstances  we  uphold  the  decision  taken  by  the

Review Select Committee and allow these appeals by setting aside the order

of the High Court.  Sivanandi will be entitled to all consequential benefits.  

……………………….J    ( Madan B. Lokur )

New Delhi;                   ………………………J February 2, 2017              ( Prafulla C. Pant )

      C.A. Nos. 4822-4826 of 2007 etc.                                                                           Page 9 of 9