required an officer to respond within one month, failing which it would be presumed that no opinion existed. Circulars dated 13.01.1999 and 30.04.2007 also mandated strict timelines for recording ACRs and provided that delay would imply absence of opinion. In the petitioner’s case, the downgrading carried no dates, contrary to these circulars. While the petitioner’s representation was still pending, the DPC convened on 07.12.2022 and considered the final seniority list as on 01.04.2021. Instead of applying the seniority-cum-merit principle, the DPC considered candidates solely on the basis of their position in the seniority list. The petitioner’s name figured at serial No. 19. Under clause 12 of the applicable rules, the DPC was required to assess integrity and overall gradings of the preceding five years. The petitioner’s integrity for all five years was unquestioned, and the ACR of 2020-21 was graded “Very Good”. She had also submitted details of her immovable properties as required. However, for overall assessment under clause 12(A)(2), a minimum “Very Good” (13 points) was required. Because the ACR for 2016-17 carried a “Good/B” entry that had never been communicated, and the ACRs for 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 had been arbitrarily downgraded without reasons, the petitioner was pushed below the benchmark.
