Chhattisgarh High Court rules that DPCs can fix minimum ACR benchmarks for promotions under seniority-cum-fitness rules

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 74

Bilapur, January 29, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that a Departmental Promotion Committee is legally empowered to prescribe a minimum benchmark based on Annual Confidential Reports for promotions made under the principle of seniority-cum-fitness.

The ruling came from a Division Bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Parth Prateem Sahu while answering a reference arising from a service dispute involving promotions in the state horticulture department.

The case was filed by Rukam Singh Tomar, a Senior Horticulture Development Officer, who challenged his supersession in promotion to the post of Assistant Director (Horticulture). Although senior in the gradation list, Tomar was overlooked in favour of a junior officer during promotions considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in June 2020.

Tomar argued that since there were no adverse remarks or pending disciplinary proceedings against him, he could not have been superseded under a seniority-based promotion system. He relied on an earlier High Court ruling which held that when promotion is based on seniority-cum-fitness, the DPC cannot prescribe minimum grading benchmarks.

The State government opposed this claim, stating that promotions were governed by the Chhattisgarh Public Service (Promotion) Rules, 2003 and the Chhattisgarh Horticulture (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 2013. Under these rules, the DPC is required to assess suitability based on service records, particularly the Annual Confidential Reports of the preceding five years.

According to the State, the DPC had fixed a minimum benchmark requiring at least “Good” grading in the ACRs, no “D” grade in any year, and no adverse remarks. Since the petitioner had received a “C” grade during the assessment period, he was found unfit despite his seniority.

Faced with conflicting Single Bench decisions on the issue, the matter was referred to the Division Bench to determine whether prescribing such benchmarks was permissible.

The Court examined the statutory framework and several Supreme Court judgments on service jurisprudence. It held that Rule 6(5) of the Promotion Rules, 2003 mandates the DPC to assess suitability using ACRs, and this assessment necessarily allows the fixing of a minimum standard.

The Bench clarified that seniority-cum-fitness does not mean automatic promotion based solely on seniority. Instead, it allows promotion of senior employees only after they meet the minimum suitability criteria prescribed by the employer through statutory rules.

The Court endorsed the earlier ruling in Prahlad Singh Gunwan v. State of Chhattisgarh and held that the contrary view taken in Harikrishna Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh was based on promotions that occurred before the 2003 rules came into force.

Answering the reference, the High Court concluded that the DPC’s decision to fix a benchmark based on ACR gradings was lawful and consistent with service rules. The writ petition will now be placed before the appropriate bench for final adjudication on merits.

Case Reference : WPS No. 3800 of 2020, Rukam Singh Tomar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others; Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, Advocate; Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate General; Counsel for Respondent No. 3: Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate.