Supreme Court of India· 24 March 2026

Can ACRs written while an officer was ineligible for Permanent Commission decide his merit?

Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.

2026 INSC 282
Coram: Surya Kant; Ujjal Bhuyan; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Regulation 203 Regulations for t…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Under a bell-curve-based system higher gradings are reserved for officers perceived to have a future in the service, so officers barred from Permanent Commission were routinely awarded middling grades and marked "Not Recommended for PC" as a mechanical consequence of ineligibility. That circularity distorts inter se merit and creates an uneven playing field.

Headnote

Navy Act, 1957 - s.9(2) - Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - Permanent Commission - Short Service Commission Officers - Annual Confidential Reports - Fairness in selection - Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - ACR grading under an assumption of ineligibility - Held: Where officers were graded under a bell-curve-based system while understood to be ineligible for Permanent Commission, higher gradings served no institutional purpose and endorsements against them were mechanical. Past ineligibility so converted into deemed unsuitability materially distorts inter se merit. (¶13, 17) Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963 - Regulation 203 - Vacancies in the stabilised cadre - Material time - Held further: The material time for assessing vacancies is when officers are actually considered, since a historical deficiency bears no rational connection to the cadre position then prevailing. Distributing the deficiency over a fifteen-year horizon is anchored in service realities, not caprice. (¶33, 38) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Existence of a vacancy - No right to be selected - Held further: A candidate has no right to be selected merely because a vacancy exists, and the competent authority may leave vacancies unfilled for policy reasons. Such a choice stands unless it is arbitrary, undermines merit or is otherwise illegal. (¶41) Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14 - Selection Board - Prior disclosure of criteria and vacancies - Held further: Confining the evaluation criteria and vacancy computation methodology to internal approval, while the Army and the Air Force promulgated theirs, violates basic norms of fairness and transparency. Appeals allowed and Permanent Commission granted in place of a fresh Board. (¶51, 56)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 13Against this backdrop, it becomes evident that where officers were understood to have no avenue for PC, and where IOs/COs were conscious that such officers would serve only for a finite tenure, the appraisal process was inevitably affected at its inception. Under a bell-curve-based system of assessment, which is designed to generate relative merit among officers of the same seniority, higher gradings tend to be reserved for those perceived to have a future in the service, as such gradings are instrumental in identifying suitability for promotion. Officers who lacked eligibility for long-term progression were, therefore, routinely awarded average or middling grades, not on account of inferior performance, but because higher grading was perceived to serve no institutional purpose. This practice has assumed decisive significance in the present case, as ACRs accounted for 90% of the marks in the Selection Board convened in December 2020, rendering such historical gradings determinative of inter se merit.

Paragraph 17As a consequence, since the Appellants were graded in an environment where their suitability for PC was never meaningfully evaluated, the assessment of inter se merit is held to have been materially distorted. We, therefore, conclude that this circularity, where past ineligibility was belatedly transformed into ‘deemed unsuitability’ for career progression, has resulted in an uneven playing field for the Appellants.

Acts & Sections

Regulation 203 Regulations for the Navy Part III, 1963s.9(2) Navy Act, 1957s.184 Navy Act, 1957Art. 14 Constitution of India, 1950

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Must the Navy fill every vacancy existing in a stabilised cadre?Must selection criteria and vacancies be disclosed before a Permanent Commission Selection Board?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections