WA/239/2026 of SRI. RAJARAM M SHETTY Vs BHARATIYA RESERVE BANK NOTE MUDRAN (P) LTD, on 10 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the Order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.15057/2022.

2. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Deputy General Manager1 from the post of Assistant General Manager2. The name of the petitioner was considered in the zone of consideration in the year 2008

1 DGM, for short 2 AGM, for short

HC-KAR

for regular promotion for the post of AGM. The petitioner appeared for the interview held on 05.09.2008 before the Selection Committee, but the name of the petitioner was excluded from the list of selected candidates. Thereafter, the petitioner was however promoted to the post of AGM on regular basis on 09.06.2016. The petitioner's promotion to the post of AGM was denied during 2008, 2011 and 2014 on the ground that his Annual Performance Appraisal Report3 ratings of the preceding three years considered for promotion to the higher grade were lesser than his juniors promoted to the higher post.

3. The petitioner was again short listed for promotion to the post of DGM, which is the selection post. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of DGM, however his name did not figure in the select list. The petitioner was informed that the candidates selected for the post of DGM have better APAR.

3 APAR, for short

HC-KAR

4. The selection to the post of DGM is made on the basis of consideration of preceding three years APAR of the candidates and therefore, the selection list is prepared. The APARs of the candidates are considered for preparing the comparative merits for making selection to the post of DGM. For preceding three years, the petitioner has been given very good in his APAR i.e., for the year 2020, 2021 and 2022.

5. As the petitioner was denied promotion, he has filed the Writ Petition. The only contention raised by the petitioner before the Writ court was that he was not communicated his APAR, in which he was assessed 'Very Good'.

6. The submission is that in the absence of communication of the APAR of 'Very Good', the petitioner did not have chance to improve upon himself to get 'Outstanding' in his APAR and therefore, he could not be promoted. In support of his submission, learned counsel

HC-KAR

for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment in DEV DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS4.

7. The Writ Court having considered the submission, by the detail order, dismissed the Writ Petition. The person will get right to make representation only against adverse entries. It is well settled that any entry of 'Very Good' or 'Good' in APAR are not adverse entries. Even in the Judgment in DEV DUTT case supra, at paragraph No.39, it has been observed as under: “39. 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 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 4 (2008) 8 SCC 725

HC-KAR

requires such communication. Article 14 will override all rules or government orders.”

8. If the petitioner would not have right to represent against the entry of 'Very Good' given to him in the APAR, it would not have made any impact on his promotion, even if entries were communicated inasmuch as, the entries in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report were only 'Very Good', whereas persons selected to the post of DGM have better APAR entries than the petitioner. We therefore, find no substance in this Writ Petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

9. In view of dismissal of the Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11