RAJENDRA BALWANT PANDE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY
Service Law - Comparison of ACRs for Promotion Must Account for Higher Responsibilities to Ensure Level Playing Field and Prevent Arbitrary Supersession.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:7529-DB
Decision Date: 25-03-2026
List of Laws
Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; MSEDCL Classification and Recruitment Regulations, 2005; Service Law - Principles of Promotion and Comparative Merit; Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Action
- Facts: The Petitioner was appointed as General Manager (HR) in 2014 at MSEDCL through a merit-based direct recruitment process. Respondent No.4 joined the same cadre much later, in 2019, through a seniority-based promotion. In 2022, a selection process was initiated for the post of Chief General Manager (CGM), which required an assessment of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the preceding five years. While the Petitioner had occupied the higher post of General Manager for all five years, two of Respondent No.4's ACRs pertained to the lower post of Deputy General Manager. Consequently, Respondent No.4 secured 25 marks (all "Outstanding") while the Petitioner secured 20 marks, falling short of the revised benchmark of 21 marks. Based on this, Respondent No.4 was promoted, superseding the Petitioner.
- Procedural Posture: the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the promotion order of Respondent No.4 and the Administrative Circular that enhanced the qualifying benchmark.
- Issue: Can a comparative assessment of merit for promotion be legally sustained when the ACRs of one candidate pertain to a higher post and the ACRs of another pertain to a lower post, and whether such candidates can be measured by the same yardstick?
- Holding: No. The Court held that comparing ACRs across different hierarchical levels without adjustment is irrational and discriminatory. It directed the setting aside of Respondent No.4's promotion and ordered the promotion of the Petitioner.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that an "apple-to-apple" comparison is impossible when officers occupy different hierarchical levels during the assessment period. Relying on the principle established in "P.S. Mahal v. Union of India" and "S.S. Sambhus v. Union of India", the Court held that an officer shouldering higher responsibilities is entitled to have their grading treated as one level higher than the one actually awarded when compared to a junior on a lower post. By upgrading the Petitioner's "Good" and "Very Good" ratings for the years he held a higher post relative to Respondent No.4, his score increased to 22, surpassing the benchmark. The Court concluded that allowing a junior to "steal a march" over a senior due to a flawed assessment methodology violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
🔒 For Members Only