IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Chandra Prakash Singh S/o Shri Uma Shankar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Chairman/Managing Director, NPCIL, Mumbai – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8533 of 2023
Decided On : 30-11-2023
APAR Grading - Promotion Eligibility - Guidelines 2011, Communication dated 13.03.2023 - The court discussed the assessment process, the role of different assessing authorities, and the legality of the assessment. The court found that the assessment done by the Assessing Authority and Additional Assessing Authority for the period 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and the final assessment arrived at by the Reviewing Authority, the Countersigning Authority, and the Final Accepting Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the APAR grading for the assessment year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023, claiming bias and unfair approach in the assessment process for promotion to the post of General Manager (HR).
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assessment process and the final assessment arrived at by the authorities did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
Issues: Challenged APAR grading, bias and unfair approach in the assessment process, eligibility for promotion to the post of General Manager (HR).
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the assessment process, the role of different assessing authorities, and the legality of the assessment, ultimately finding no infirmity or illegality in the final assessment.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and all pending applications, being devoid of any merit.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:
(i) The impugned APAR for the assessment year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 (Annexure-3) may kindly be declared as illegal on the ground of non-compliance of guidelines issued by the respondent authorities.
(ii) The impugned APAR for the assessment year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 (Annexure-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to undertake fresh assessment proceedings for a preparation of APAR for the year 2022-2023.
(iv) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of General Manager (HR) after revising the APAR for the year 2022-2023......”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in service of the respondent No. 1 organisation i.e. National Power Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as NPCIL) on the post of Deputy Manager (P&IR). Thereafter, by way of the order dated 21.8.2018, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Additional General Manager (HR), which is the feeder post for further promotion to the post of General Manager (HR).
3. Learned counsel submitted that the essential criteria/eligibility for consideration for the promotion to the post of General Manager (HR) is experience of five years’ service on the post of Additional General Manager (HR) coupled with achievement of five consecutive outstanding APARs (Grade A1). The petitioner had consecutively received Grade A1 in the APARs for the years from 2019 to 2022 (Annex.2). However he was awarded with Grade A2 (Annex.3) in the year 2023 and being aggrieved thereby, he submitted representations to the Director (HR) NPCIL through email (Annex.4 & 5 dated 11.05.2023 and 24.05.2023 respectively) bringing to the notice of the aforesaid authority the bias and unfair approach adopted towards the petitioner while granting the grade for the reporting year 2022-23. The petitioner thereafter submitted various emails and correspondences to the respondent department ventilating his grievances but the same did not yield any fruits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that though his performance was assessed by the Reporting/Assessing officer Shri Sunil Gadgil, OS, Site Director, for the reporting period 2022-2023, as Grade A2 by awarding 89.58 marks, however, another Reporting/Assessing authority Shri Surendra Bhushan Joshi, OS, ED (Projects-PHWR) while making an additional assessment of his performance, under whom the petitioner worked for a very brief period, has awarded him 84.34 marks for the same reporting period and awarded him Grade A2. He thus submitted that, the Reviewing Authority, the Countersigning Authority and the Final Accepting Authority, after going through the reports of Assessing Authority and Additional Assessing Authority have accepted the assessment report submitted by Reporting/ Additional Assessing Officer and maintained the marks (84.34) awarded to the petitioner by him while giving him Grade A2.
5. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the communication (Annex.3) whereby he was communicated APAR Grading for the period 1.4.2022-31.03.2023. The petitioner has also prayed that by quashing the impugned communication (Annex.3) respondent authorities may be directed to undertake fresh assessment proceedings for the period 1.04.2022-31.03.2023. Learned counsel submitted that a prayer has further been made that respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of General Manager (HR) after revising/re-assessing his APAR Gra
The legality and infirmity of the assessment process and final assessment arrived at by the authorities.
The court cannot re-assess the evidence for the grading and found no legal grounds to review the assessment. No adverse remarks were made against the petitioner, and the grading was based on his perf....
The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for downgrading assessments and considered uncontroverted serious allegations in reaching its decision.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fairness and objectivity in preparing APARs, and the court's authority to expunge unjustified adverse remarks and direct a revi....
Non-communication of below benchmark grading in ACR/APAR is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The rejection of representation against below benchmark grading must be....
The court affirmed that APAR grades depend solely on current performance, and that prior commendations do not alter evaluations for subsequent periods.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.