INDERJEET SINGH SIDHU vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 9th January, 2026. Pronounced on: 10th March, 2026. Uploaded on: 10th March, 2026. + W.P.(C) 7913/2018 INDERJEET SINGH SIDHU .....Petitioner Through: Mr. SN Kaul and Mr. Vinod Z., Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anju Gupta & Mr. Bhuvan Goel, Advs for UOI. Mr. Saurabh Mishra, Mr. Abhinav Pandey and Mr. Shrimay Mishra, Advs. for R-2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA JUDGMENT SANJEEV NARULA, J.: 1. This petition questions the legality of the “Unsatisfactory” grading recorded in the Petitioner’s Annual Confidential Report1 for the year 2015- 2016, and the decision communicated on 11th August, 2017 rejecting his representation. The challenge is to the fairness and legality of the process by which an adverse assessment was recorded, endorsed, and then defended by the very authority whose endorsement was under challenge. Facts 2. The Petitioner joined EdCIL (India) Limited in August, 2008 as General Manager (Civil & Procurement) and was subsequently re- designated as Chief General Manager. He asserts that his ACRs were Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 7913/2018 Page 1 of 13 Digitally Signed By:NITIN KAIN Signing Date:10.03.2026 19:39:57 consistently graded “Outstanding” or “Very Good” until the impugned year 2015-2016. He submits that for 2015-2016, targets were fixed at the beginning of the year on 1st April, 2015 and were later revised and supplemented on 23rd December, 2015, leaving an unworkable period for completion. The Petitioner also relies on contemporaneous material to say that the concerned division faced structural constraints, including shortage of technical manpower and project-gestation characteristics, which were placed before the management in writing. 3. The Peti