JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J.

1. As per facts involved, the petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) in the Border Security Force [Hereinafter referred to as `BSF'], communicated the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report [Hereinafter referred to as `APAR'] for the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and was also required to make a representation qua the same vide letter dated 17.12.2012 issued by the Commandant of 32 BN of BSF [Hereinafter referred to as `Commandant'].

2. On 09.01.2013, the petitioner made a representation to the Commandant, which was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General, Station Headquarters, [Hereinafter referred to as `DIG, SHQ'] BSF Jammu, vide order dated 03.04.2013.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner made other representations too, which, on 05.12.2018, were rejected by the Spl. Director General [Hereinafter referred to as `DG'] (Western Command), BSF. Undeterred, the petitioner once again made another representation before the DG, BSF on 06.09.2016 assailing the legality of the order dated 05.12.2018 as also the concerned APAR. This also, as before proved to be of no avail.

4. As such, the petitioner approached this Hon'b