A delayed challenge to a Part Performance Appraisal Report (PPAR) is disallowed to maintain administrative integrity and protect the interests of other personnel.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

C.M. No.21828/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant Rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.6915/2021

3. The petitioner, an Inspector in the respondents Border Security Force (BSF), has filed this petition, (i) seeking promotion to the post of Assistant Commandant; and, (ii) seeking quashing of the Part Performance Appraisal Report (PPAR) for the period 1st April, 2011 to 1st September, 2011, to the extent the same contains adverse remarks against and confers low numerical grading, to the petitioner; alternatively, reliefs of, (iii) promotion with effect from 2018; and, (iv) grant of benefit of 2nd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) with effect from 21st April, 2017, are claimed.

4. The matter has a chequered history, though lucidly detailed in the petition. The facts emerging from the petition are, (i) that the petitioner was informed of his PPAR for the impugned period of 1st April, 2011 to 1st September, 2011 containing adverse remarks and giving low numerical grading, for the first time on 31st August, 2012; (ii) that the petitioner first represented thereagainst, after nearly six months i.e. only on 16th January, 2013 and which representation was rejected on 24th June, 2013; (iii) that the petitioner, after waiting for nearly ten months, made another representation on 30th April, 2014, which was also rejected on 25th June, 2014; (iv) that the petitioner appears to be satisfied, and did not take the matter of his PPAR for the impugned period any further; (v) that the batch mates of the petitioner were granted the benefit of MACP on 21st April, 2017 and which MACP was denied to the petitioner, for the reason of the impugned PPAR; (vi) that the petitioner, who had earlier allowed the matter of the impugned PPAR to rest, then got served a legal notice dated 3rd May, 2017 on the respondents BSF qua the denial of MACP, again representing against the PPAR for the impugned period and seeking MACP benefits from 21st April, 2017, when his batch mates were granted the said benefits; (vii) that the respondents BSF, vide their response dated 28th June, 2017, denied the said representation of the petitioner also; (viii) that it is at that stage i.e. after almost five years from the date when the petitioner was first informed of the PPAR for the impugned period, that the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.7812/2017 impugning the same; (ix) that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 4th December, 2019, directing a review of the impugned PPAR of the petitioner in the manner prescribed therein; (x) that the respondents BSF, vide order dated 11th February, 2020 impugned in this petition, have refused to interfere with the impugned PPAR; and, (xi) that the petitioner after waiting for more than one year, has now filed this petition.

5. We have at the outset only enquired from the counsel for the petitioner, why the challenge by the petitioner, insofar as to the PPAR for the impugned period, be not dismissed on the ground of delay, laches, acquiescence and waiver. Reference in this regard may be made to Narender Singh Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/9347/2006, Sanatan Prasad Vs. High Court of Delhi, MANU/DE/0347/2012, Arun Kumar Poddar Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/1139/2014, Mukul Kumar Misra Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/2687/2017, Shiv Narayan Balai Vs. Union of India, MANU/DE/0389/2021 and Anupam Kumar Vs. Director General, Border Security Force, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2648, in all of which delayed challenge to APAR was not entertained. We cannot, in the year 2021, interfere with the PPAR for the period 1st April