Gulab Singh Vs U O I and Anr.

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10303/2013

Gulab Singh Son of Shri Amar Singh, aged about 60 years, Resident of 120-Rajendra Path, 21 South Colony, Niwaroo Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.). At present working as Inspector at C.S.C Reserve Company, North Western Railway, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India, through Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶8

Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force North Western Railway Head Quarter, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohit Balwada,Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Judgment

¶13

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18/02/2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 18/02/2026

¶14

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full Judgment

¶15

4. Date of pronouncement 16/03/2026

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the respondents' decision not to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner/Assistant Commandant in Group ‘A’ Junior Scale, and also to seek quashing of the Annual Confidential Reports (‘ACRs’) for the year 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

¶17

Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as a SubInspector in the Railway Protection Force on 01.04.1978 and was

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

(2 of 7)

subsequently promoted to the post of Inspector in the year 1994. As per the seniority list dated 30.03.2006, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 538, whereas Shri Anil Bhalerao, who was junior to the petitioner and placed at Serial No. 539, came to be promoted.

¶22

The petitioner’s grievance stems from the promotion order dated 10.08.2011 which promoted 31 Inspectors to the position of Assistant Security Commissioner/Assistant Commandant (Group ‘A’ Junior Scale), despite the petitioner being senior and otherwise eligible for promotion.

¶23

The ACRs for the years 2005 to 2008 were communicated to the petitioner only in January, 2011 and the same were relied upon by the respondents while denying promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that in the relevant column of the said ACRs he was recorded as 'fit for promotion' . It is further urged that certain adverse remarks, particularly for the year 2007, were unwarranted inasmuch as the petitioner was not assigned duties relating to crime control during the said period.

¶24

The petitioner submitted a representation challenging the impugned ACRs as well as the denial of promotion. It is further contended that the action of the respondents in promoting officers junior to the petitioner, while overlooking his candidature, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 30.06.2013.

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

(3 of 7)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was fully eligible for promotion at the relevant time and that his seniority position has not been disputed. It is further contended that despite petitioner being senior, his juniors were promoted vide order dated 10.08.2011 without considering his candidature, which is arbitrary and violative of the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶29

It is also submitted that the ACRs were communicated to the petitioner belatedly in the year 2011 and the same were relied upon as a basis to deny him promotion, which is impermissible in law and the remarks recorded in the said ACRs were unjustified and that the petitioner was otherwise found suitable for promotion.

¶30

Furthermore, it is argued that denial of promotion on the basis of such ACRs, coupled with the promotion of officers junior to the petitioner, infringes the constitutional guarantee of equality as provided under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned action be set aside and petitioner be promoted to the Post of Assistant Security Commissioner/Assistant Commandant in Group ‘A’ Junior Scale with all consequential benefits.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the promotion procedure is governed by the RPF Officers Recruitment Rules, 1994 read with the Department of Personnel and Training’s letter No. 22011/5/91/Estt.(D) dated 27.03.1997 and that the petitioner’s ACRs for the years 2006 to 2008 were graded as 'Average', which was below the prescribed benchmark

(4 of 7)

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

for promotion to Group ‘A’ Junior Scale. It is further submitted that promotions were made on the basis of eligibility, seniority and fulfillment of the benchmark criteria, which the petitioner failed to satisfy.

¶36

It is also submitted that the ACRs for the relevant years were communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the Railway Board’s instructions dated 04.01.2011 and the petitioner acknowledged receipt of the same on 13.01.2011. The representation submitted by the petitioner was duly considered and disposed of by the competent authority.

¶37

Additionally, it is pointed out that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2013 upon attaining the age of superannuation and has already been granted financial upgradations under the applicable schemes. Therefore, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the action of the respondents and the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the action of the respondents for the following reasons:

¶39

Firstly, the ACRs for the years 2006 to 2008, which were communicated to the petitioner, record his grading as 'Average', and the representation submitted by the petitioner challenging the said ACRs have already been considered and rejected by the competent authority.

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

(5 of 7)

Secondly, it is well settled that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions with regard to petitioners representation challenging his ACR's.

¶44

Thirdly, the law is equally settled that in the absence of any specific allegation of mala fides against the officer who recorded the entries in the ACRs, the Court would ordinarily refrain from interfering with such administrative assessments. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to attribute any specific mala fides to the concerned officials.

¶45

Moreso, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Amrik

¶46

Singh v. Union of India, (2001) 10 SCC 424 , delineated upon

¶47

the scope of interference in the administrative matters, has held as under:-

¶48

“ 14 . The scope of judicial review in such matters of assessment of merit for purpose of promotion has been dealt with by this Court recently in the case of Union of India v. Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan [(2000) 6 SCC 698 : 2000 SCC (L&S) 797 : (2000) 5 Scale 327]

¶49

15 . In para 29 of the said judgment, this Court stated as follows: (SCC pp. 714-15)

¶50

“29. The contention put forth before us is that there are factual inaccuracies in the statement recorded by the Cabinet Secretary in his note and, therefore, must be deemed to be vitiated so as to reach a conclusion that the decision of the Government in this regard is not based on proper material. The learned Attorney-General, therefore, took great pains to bring the entire records relating to the relevant period which were considered by the Cabinet Secretary and sought to point out that there were notings available on those files which justify these remarks. Prima facie, we cannot say, having gone through those records, that these notings are baseless. Critical analysis or appraisal

(6 of 7)

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

of the file by the Court may neither be conducive to the interests of the officers concerned or for the morale of the entire force. Maybe one may emphasize one aspect rather than the other but in the appraisal of the total profile, the entire service profile has been taken care of by the authorities concerned and we cannot substitute our view to that of the authorities . It is a well-known principle of administrative law that when relevant considerations have been taken note of and irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and that no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, the same cannot be attacked on merits. Judicial review is permissible only to the extent of finding whether the process in reaching decision has been observed correctly and not the decision as such. In that view of the matter, we think there is no justification for the High Court to have interfered with the order made by the Government .”

¶55

21 . In the result, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the appellant in spite of the fact that his performance in the subsequent years has been shown to be very good and his ratings were very high. Ultimately the single adverse remark of 1985-86 by the Reviewing Officer had stood in his way, not only at the time of original consideration but also when the matter was considered afresh pursuant to the directions of the High Court. The result may be unfortunate. But the scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court being very limited, we cannot go into the correctness of the adverse remarks, nor into the assessment made by the Selection Board on the two occasions .”

¶56

(Emphasis Supplied)

¶57

Therefore, in the absence of any cogent material on record to contradict the stand of the respondents that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility requirements for promotion i.e., grading of 'Good' in terms of RPF Officers Recruitment Rules, 1994 read with DOPTs letter No. 22011/5/91/Estt.(D) dated 27.03.1997, this

(7 of 7)

[2026:RJ-JP:10810]

[CW-10303/2013]

Court finds no justifiable reason to interfere with the administrative decision taken by the respondents.

¶62