Selection Committee Bound To Reconsider Employee For Promotion Based On Upgraded Performance Grade: Bombay High Court

A division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne was dealing with an employee’s writ petition seeking promotion once his performance grade was upgraded.

“whenever grading of an employee/officer is upgraded, such upgraded grading is required to be taken into consideration by a Review DPC which meets to review the recommendations made by earlier DPC, which had taken into consideration the non-upgraded grading. If this is not done, the entire objective behind conducting review DPC would be frustrated”, the court held.

The selection committee had reconsidered his case for promotion after upgradation of his grade, but still considered his non-upgraded grade and rejected him.

The petitioner, an employee of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL), was given “Poor” grade for the year 2007-08 in the confidential report. However, this grading was communicated to him five years later in 2012. Thereafter he sought upgradation of his grade and in 2014, it was upgraded to “Very Good” for 2007-2008.

Meanwhile, on May 5, 2012, a Selection Committee refused to recommend him for promotion due to his “Poor” grade. After upgradation of his grade in 2014, he sought reconsideration of his name for promotion with effect from May 5, 2012. However, the review committee did not recommend him for promotion with effect from May 5, 2012 citing a 2010 Administrative Circular. The Circular provided that even if the grade is upgraded, it can only be considered with prospective effect. Hence, the present writ petition.

The court opined that the 2010 Administrative Circular is inconsistent with the entire scheme of reporting performance. The performance report is for fitness of employees of promotion as well as to enable him to improve his performance, the court said.

Therefore, if any adverse grading is recorded, it should be communicated to the employee immediately so that he can improve performance, and request for upgradation so that he does not suffer in promotion, the court added.

The court held that the communication of “Poor” grade five years later completely frustrated this object. Due to the employer’s mistake, the erroneous grading of “Poor” for 2007-08 continued to be reflected in the employees performance report from 2008 to 2014, the court noted.

The court held that once the grading of an employee is upgraded, a review committee has to consider it while reviewing the selection committee’s recommendation which was based on non-upgraded grading.

The court noted that even though a committee met for reconsideration of petitioner’s promotion with effect from 2012 due to upgraded grade, it refused to consider the upgraded grading to decide the petitioner's case. Thus, the entire objective behind conducting the review selection committee meeting is frustrated, the court held.

The court concluded that the selection committee should have considered petitioner’s case for promotion by considering the upgraded grading of “Very Good” for the year 2007-08.

The court noted that even though the grade in the performance report may not be the sole criteria for promotion, it is one of the most vital criteria.

Hence, the moment there is a change in the grading, the selection committee has to consider the change by reconsidering the employee’s case for promotion, the court held. “…the moment there is change in the grading in ACR/APAR (Annual Performance Assessment Report), such change is required to be considered by the DPC/Selection Committee while reconsidering his/her case for promotion”.

Hence the court directed MSEDCL to reconsider the petitioner's case for promotion w.e.f. 2012 by taking into consideration upgraded grading of “Very Good” for the year 2007-08. The court further directed MSEDCL to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 2012 with all consequential benefits if found fit for promotion.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 73 of 2020

Case Title – Ashok Ratnapal Narwade v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 188