Gujarat High Court Allows Promotion Claim Due to Non-Communication of APARs — IRCTC Promotion Policy Benchmark Quashed as Arbitrary. The court held that non-communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports before using them to deny promotion violates principles of natural justice, and directed reconsideration of promotion without considering uncommunicated APARs.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:48:14

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Susheel Patil, an employee of Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC), filed a petition under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution challenging the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012, which required a benchmark of 21 out of 25 in the last 5 years confidential reports for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade. The petitioner contended that the benchmark was unreasonable and arbitrary, and that the respondent authorities considered his APARs with ratings below the benchmark without prior communication, thereby denying him promotion in violation of principles of natural justice. The court, after hearing arguments, held that while the benchmark itself was not per se arbitrary, the failure to communicate the APARs to the petitioner before using them to deny promotion was violative of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade in accordance with the IRCTC Promotion Rules, 2007, without taking into account the uncommunicated APARs, and to complete the process within three months.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Promotion - Benchmark Requirement - IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012 - The court examined whether the benchmark of 21 out of 25 in the last 5 years confidential reports for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court held that the benchmark was not per se arbitrary but its application without prior communication of APARs was violative of natural justice. (Paras 1-37)

B) Service Law - Annual Performance Appraisal Report - Communication - Principles of Natural Justice - The court held that non-communication of APARs to the employee before using them to deny promotion violates principles of natural justice. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court directed that the petitioner be considered for promotion without taking into account the uncommunicated APARs. (Paras 1-37)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the requirement of benchmark of 21 out of 25 in the last 5 years confidential reports for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade, as stipulated in the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; and whether consideration of APARs with rating below the benchmark for promotion without prior communication of the APARs to the petitioner is contrary to law and principles of natural justice.

Final Decision

The court allowed the petition in part. It held that the benchmark requirement was not per se arbitrary but the non-communication of APARs before using them to deny promotion was violative of principles of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade in accordance with the IRCTC Promotion Rules, 2007, without taking into account the uncommunicated APARs, and to complete the process within three months.

Law Points

Principles of natural justice require communication of adverse entries in APAR before they can be used to deny promotion
Delay in communication of APAR renders the entries invalid for consideration
Benchmark requirement in promotion policy must be reasonable and non-arbitrary

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:7

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13473 of 2013

2026-01-05

Maulik J. Shelat

2026:GUJHC:7

Mr. Gautam Joshi, Senior Counsel for Mr. Aaditya D Bhatt, Chandni S Joshi for the Petitioner; Mr. Sudhir M Mehta for the Respondents

Susheel Patil

Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd & Ors.

Nature of Litigation

Service matter challenging promotion policy and denial of promotion due to non-communication of APARs

Remedy Sought

Declaration that the benchmark requirement in IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16; quashing of consideration of uncommunicated APARs; direction to consider petitioner for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade under IRCTC Promotion Rules, 2007

Filing Reason

Petitioner was denied promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade because his APAR ratings did not meet the benchmark of 21 out of 25 in the last 5 years, and the APARs were not communicated to him prior to such consideration

Issues

Whether the requirement of benchmark of 21 out of 25 in the last 5 years confidential reports for promotion from E-3 to E-4 grade, as stipulated in the IRCTC Promotion Policy, 2012, is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution Whether consideration of APARs with rating below the benchmark for promotion without prior communication of the APARs to the petitioner is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and principles of natural justice

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the benchmark of 21 out of 25 is arbitrary and that non-communication of APARs violates natural justice Respondents argued that the benchmark is reasonable and that APARs were communicated in accordance with rules

Ratio Decidendi

Non-communication of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports to an employee before using them to deny promotion violates principles of natural justice, and such uncommunicated APARs cannot be considered for denying promotion.

Judgment Excerpts

Time and again, the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in its various authoritative pronouncements, held that delay in communicating the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) [now termed as the Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR)] and/or non-communication of the ACR/APAR to an employee by the State and its instrumentalities would result into the violation of the principles of natural justice with regard to the career advancement of the employee The present petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs