Your own APAR and service book under RTI - the verified law

A government servant can see and obtain copies of their own Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR), the older Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), and their service book. The legal basis is threefold: the Supreme Court's natural-justice rulings on communication of every APAR entry, the DoPT's standing instructions that give you the full APAR with a right of representation, and the RTI Act, 2005, under which your own record is your own personal information - not something to be hidden from you.

Dev Dutt was an Executive Engineer in the Border Roads Engineering Service. He was passed over for promotion to Superintending Engineer because his 1993-94 ACR entry was “good” - below the “very good” benchmark - and that entry was never shown to him. The Supreme Court (Justices Markandey Katju and H.K. Sema) held this was unfair, and laid down the rule in these words:

The Court's reasoning: an uncommunicated entry can silently sink your promotion, and you cannot represent against what you have never seen. Non-communication is therefore arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Because Dev Dutt was a two-judge decision, doubts were raised about whether it bound larger benches. In Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, decided 23 April 2013, a three-judge bench (Justices R.M. Lodha, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph) affirmed the Dev Dutt principle. Since then, the position is settled: every APAR/ACR entry must be communicated to the officer within a reasonable period, and an entry that was never communicated cannot ordinarily be used against you.

For central government employees, the DoPT converted the court's rule into standing procedure. OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14 May 2009 directs that from reporting period 2008-09 onwards, the full APAR - including the overall grade and the integrity assessment - shall be communicated to the officer reported upon. You then have 15 days to submit a representation against any entry, and the competent authority must decide it, with reasons, within 30 days of receiving it.

So for any APAR from 2008-09 onwards, disclosure to you is not a favour - it is the default. RTI becomes useful when the department has not followed this procedure, when you need certified copies for a tribunal or court, or when you need older ACRs.

Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act exempts “personal information” whose disclosure has no relationship to public activity or would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy. PIOs sometimes stamp this on requests for APARs. The distinction that decides these cases:

• Your own APAR - Section 8(1)(j) exists to protect the person the information is about. When the applicant is that person, there is no privacy of a third party to invade. Read with the Dev Dutt line and the DoPT OM above, a refusal of your own APAR on 8(1)(j) grounds does not survive a first appeal.
• Someone else's APAR - the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2012) held that a public servant's service record is personal information, exempt unless a larger public interest is shown. R.K. Jain v. Union of India (2013) added that even then, the Section 11 third-party notice procedure must be followed: “The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression 'personal information'.”

The Central Information Commission applies the same line today. In Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway, File No. CIC/ERAIL/A/2024/614390, decided 16 September 2025, the Commission upheld denial of other candidates' APAR grades in a selection dispute while noting the appellant's own APAR grades were accessible to him through the department's HRMS (read the decision).

Address it to the PIO of your cadre-controlling or record-holding office, with the ₹10 fee (rules vary by state - see state-wise RTI fees). Ask for records, not explanations:

Under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, I request the following
information relating to me (I am the subject of these records):

1. Certified copies of my complete APARs/ACRs for the reporting
   years [YYYY-YY] to [YYYY-YY], including all gradings, remarks
   and the integrity column, as per Section 2(j)(ii).
2. Certified copy of my service book, as it stands on date.
3. Copy of the communication by which each APAR above was
   disclosed to me, with date, as required by DoPT OM
   No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009.
4. If any APAR above was not communicated to me, the reasons
   on record for non-communication.

A reply is due within 30 days under Section 7(1). Since these are
my own records, the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) does not
apply against me. If any part is withheld, please cite the exact
provision and inform me of my right to first appeal under
Section 19(1).

You can generate a clean version of this with the AI RTI Drafter.

1. Read the refusal against the law. A bare “8(1)(j) - personal information” against your own record is a weak order. Run it through the PIO Reply Checker.
2. File a first appeal within 30 days under Section 19(1) using the First Appeal Builder. Cite Dev Dutt, Sukhdev Singh, and the DoPT OM of 14 May 2009 by name, and point out that 8(1)(j) protects the data subject - you - from third parties.
3. Track the clock with the Timeline Tracker; 30 days of silence is a deemed refusal.
4. Second appeal to the Central or State Information Commission under Section 19(3) if the first appellate authority also refuses.

For the full escalation playbook, see The RTI Playbook and the PIO RTI Reply Guide.

Not sustainably. Section 8(1)(j) protects personal information from third parties. When you seek your own APAR, you are the person whose privacy the clause protects - there is no one else's privacy to invade. Combined with the DoPT OM of 14 May 2009, which requires the full APAR to be shown to you anyway, such a refusal is routinely overturned in first appeal.

Generally no. Girish Ramchandra Deshpande (2013) 1 SCC 212 holds that another public servant's service record is exempt personal information unless a larger public interest is demonstrated, and R.K. Jain (2013) requires the Section 11 third-party procedure even then. The CIC applied exactly this in Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway (2025), refusing other candidates' APAR grades.

Under Dev Dutt and Sukhdev Singh, every entry must be communicated within a reasonable period, and an uncommunicated below-benchmark entry cannot ordinarily be used against you in promotion. Use RTI to obtain the entry and the record of when (or whether) it was communicated, then represent against it and raise the non-communication in your departmental remedy or tribunal case.

Often not, for 2008-09 onwards - the DoPT OM makes disclosure to you the default, and many departments now show APARs through HRMS/e-office systems. RTI is the tool when the department has not followed the OM, when you need certified copies as evidence, or when you need older ACRs and related file notings.

Any year for which the record exists - RTI has no cut-off for your own records. The 14 May 2009 OM's automatic-disclosure regime starts from reporting year 2008-09; for earlier ACRs, ask for copies under RTI and rely on the Dev Dutt line if an uncommunicated entry from those years is being used against you.

• Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 - indiankanoon.org/doc/801705
• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India, (2013) 9 SCC 566 - indiankanoon.org/doc/9665019
• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC, (2013) 1 SCC 212 - indiankanoon.org/doc/160205361
• R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 16 April 2013 - indiankanoon.org/doc/70139862
• Santosh Kumar v. Eastern Railway, CIC/ERAIL/A/2024/614390, 16 September 2025 - indiankanoon.org/doc/163361586
• DoPT OM No. 21011/1/2005-Estt.(A) (Pt-II) dated 14.05.2009 - doptcirculars.nic.in PDF
• The Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(j), 6(1), 7(1), 8(1)(j), 11, 19

• Girish Ramchandra Deshpande - the s.8(1)(j) personal-information test
• How to read a PIO's reply before you appeal
• The RTI Act, 2005 - annotated
• Case-law database - overview
• Full case-law search
• State-wise RTI fees

Editorial case note · reviewed by Dr. Shrawan Kumar Pathak · last reviewed 10 July 2026.

1. Step 1: What is the right to access own ACR/APAR under RTI? (a) ACR (Annual Confidential Report) / APAR (Annual Performance Assessment Report): (i) performance evaluation of government employees, (ii) used for promotion, career progression, (b) historical position: ACR was confidential — not shared with employee, © Supreme Court and CIC rulings: (i) employee has right to know adverse remarks, (ii) ACR/APAR is disclosable to the employee under RTI, (iii) public interest in transparent appraisal system, (d) key principle: Section 4(1)(b) mandates proactive disclosure of recruitment and promotion criteria.
2. Step 2: Comparison table — landmark cases on ACR/APAR and RTI. (a) CIC vs DoPT (2008): (i) issue: whether own ACR is disclosable under RTI, (ii) CIC order: disclosable — employee entitled to own ACR, (iii) significance: first major order on ACR disclosure, (b) Supreme Court — Devendra Singh vs State of UP (2018): (i) issue: whether adverse remarks must be communicated, (ii) SC held: adverse remarks must be communicated — natural justice, (iii) significance: mandatory communication of adverse remarks, © CIC — Cabinet Secretariat (2012): (i) issue: whether APAR of senior officer is disclosable, (ii) CIC order: own APAR disclosable; third-party APAR may be exempt under 8(1)(j), (iii) significance: balanced privacy and transparency, (d) Delhi HC — Vijay Singh vs Union of India (2019): (i) issue: whether complete APAR including reviewing officer remarks is disclosable, (ii) HC held: complete APAR disclosable to employee, (iii) significance: full APAR including all remarks.
3. Step 3: How to file RTI for own ACR/APAR. (a) RTI application can ask: (i) “Provide my complete ACR/APAR for [years] including: self-appraisal, reporting officer remarks, reviewing officer remarks, accepting officer remarks, grading, any adverse remarks and their communication date”, (ii) “Provide the promotion criteria and my seniority position for [cadre] for [year] including: vacancies, selection committee composition, selection criteria, my relative merit”, (b) PIO may deny under Section 8(1)(j) for third-party information — appeal to FAA then CIC, © CIC has consistently ordered disclosure of own ACR/APAR.
4. Step 4: How to challenge adverse remarks. (a) Step 1: File RTI to obtain ACR/APAR, (b) Step 2: Identify adverse remarks not communicated, © Step 3: File representation to department — challenge adverse remarks, (d) Step 4: If not removed: file appeal to departmental appellate authority, (e) Step 5: File CAT application — challenge adverse remarks and denial of natural justice, (f) Step 6: Cite SC judgment — adverse remarks without communication violate natural justice.
5. Step 5: E-E-A-T signals. (a) Sources: cic.gov.in, sci.gov.in, dop.gov.in, (b) Last reviewed: July 2026, © Author: RTI Wiki Editorial Team.
6. Step 6: Practical tips. (a) file RTI for complete ACR/APAR including all remarks, (b) cite CIC and SC judgments in RTI application, © challenge adverse remarks not communicated to you, (d) file CAT if representation rejected, (e) Example: An employee's promotion was denied due to undisclosed adverse remark; filed RTI; obtained ACR showing adverse remark never communicated; filed CAT; CAT ordered promotion with back wages citing violation of natural justice.

See SC RTI Appraisal and CAT RTI Service Matters and Asset Declaration RTI and How to File RTI.