“Don’t Make It An Ego Issue”: SC Expresses Displeasure With Manipur HC’s Failure To Comply With Its Order

The Supreme Court recently expressed displeasure with the Manipur High Court for failing to comply with its February judgement (in which the top court required the case for promotion of a High Court employee to be considered on the basis of two years’ ACRs).

A bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice C. T. Ravikumar was hearing a writ petition filed by a high court employee who claimed she was entitled to be promoted to the position of assistant registrar based on a seniority-cum-merit calculation.

Senior Advocate R. Bala Subramanian argued on behalf of the aggrieved petitioner that the promotion committee’s decision was flawed because the ACR for 2016-17, which awarded the employee a ‘Good’ grade, was not communicated to the petitioner and the ACR for 2019-20, which had the same grade, was communicated only one day before the committee met.

The petitioner’s main argument was that these two uncommunicated ACRs could not be considered when determining her suitability for promotion. “In the remaining years, the petitioner was awarded a ‘Very Good’ grade,” the senior counsel claimed. “If the ACRs for 2016-17 and 2019-20 are removed, the petitioner would have received the promotion.”

The Manipur High Court has proceeded to convene fresh DPC to consider the case of other selected candidates.

The bench reprimanded the counsel appearing for the High Court,

“Why are you now conducting fresh DPC with respect to 8 other persons? Tell your High Court, our order is very clear! Out of five years, 3 ACRs are to be ignored and 2 to be considered and thereafter her case be reconsidered and she has to be given promotion. Don’t make it an ego issue! When the High Court is running the administration, the High Court should be fair to everybody! Do not make it an ego issue, tell your Chief Justice!”

Justice Subramanian demanded, “Where was the pressure of considering other persons also? Only her case would be considered! And she shall be placed at the place where the junior was promoted. The High Court is not understanding the order? Our order is very clear, tell your Chief Justice! Consider her case! There was no confusion! The order is very clear. We are not concerned with whether there are 6 posts or 60 posts or 600 posts, we are concerned with the case of the original writ petitioner and her case is to be reconsidered ignoring 3 ACRs! After ignoring three years’ ACRs, two are very good. So she is bound to be given promotion!”

When the High Court’s counsel argued that the order had been “misunderstood,” Justice Shah rebuked him, saying the order is “very clear!”

“Do you want contempt notice against the High Court? The order is very clear…it appears that the High Court understands that they are above the Supreme Court! We are issuing contempt notice against the High Court now!”, Justice Shah sternly expressed.

Then, as Justice C. T. Ravikumar pointed out, “The phrase used in the judgement is “her case must be reconsidered.” There is no room for misunderstanding “.

The bench then passed the following order,

“It is very unfortunate that the High Court misinterpreted our earlier judgement and order dated February 24, 2023.” Our judgement and order state unequivocally that the original writ petitioner’s case for promotion should be reconsidered in light of the ACRs for 2017-18 and 2018-19. The Administrative Division of the High Court is obligated to consider the same in its entirety. There was no discussion of forming a new DPC to consider the cases of the other selected candidates. Indeed, their services are already safeguarded. The High Court is directed to follow our previous judgement and order dated February 24, 2023 in its entirety within a period of 2 weeks from today and submit the compliance report before this Court”

In its judgment of February 24, 2023, the Supreme Court held that failure to accord sufficient time for an employee to challenge the assessment of their performance for a particular year in an Annual Confidential Report (ACR) before a departmental promotion committee is convened, would be treated as a non-disclosure of the evaluation report, while setting aside the proceedings of a DPC of the Manipur High Court determining appointment to the post of assistant registrar.