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 performance while 'on duty'.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent in No.R.XIII.1/-2015-NEZ dated 23rd January 2017 and the consequential order of the fifth respondent in No.R.XIII-53/2017-DA-13(APAR), dated 12th December, 2017 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 to 5 to upgrade the benchmark of "Good" in the petitioner's Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014 or alternatively direct the respondents to ignore his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014 while considering him for promotion to the next higher post.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2017 and the consequential order dated 12.12.2017, under which, it has been held that there is no cogent reason to interfere with the 'Good' recorded in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) of the petitioner for the period from 01.04.2014 to 25.10.2014.

2. The petitioner was working as Commandant in the Recruit Training Centre (RTC) in the administrative control of the sixth respondent, and the petitioner entered into service on 29.02.1996 in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Directly Appointed Gazetted Officer. He was working as Second-in- Command from 20.05.2008. When he was working in 36 Battalion', he was graded as 'Good' in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) by the seventh respondent for the period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014. According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid APAR period from 01.04.2014 to 24.10.2014, he had not served under the Reporting Officer for a mandatory period of 90 days, though he has not worked under the Reporting Officer for the period of 90 days, he has been erroneously graded for his performance with lower Bench- mark 'Good'.

3. According to the petitioner, the Reporting Officer was not having the requisite experience of 90 days to initiate the report. The fourth respondent herein, in the capacity as the Reviewing Officer, ought to have initiated the report, since the petitioner served only under him during the said period. It is also stated by the petitioner that, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the said exercise was not undertaken. Further, the fourth respondent, in the capacity as Reviewing Officer, failed to form independent judgment on his own. Moreover, the Reviewing Officer has mechanically agreed with the assessment and pen-picture was reflected by the Reporting Officer and awarded exactly same marks as that of the Reporting Officer, against each and every work output/attribute/functional competency parameter.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that the Reporting Officer has used merely 18 words as against 70 words to describe his over-all qualities including areas of strength and lesser strength or weaknesses, thereby amounting to the fact that the Reporting Officer did not assess him in accordance with the guidelines and instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in this regard.

5. It is also stated by the petitioner that the third respondent being the accepting authority, without independently examining the APAR, merely concurred with the lower grading awarded by both Officers, namely the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the third respondent, in violation of the guidelines, indicated the final grading by tick mark. Moreover, the copy of the APAR for the aforesaid period was communicated to him on 17.09.2015. According to the petitioner, he immediately submitted a representation to the Inspector General, North East Sector, against the lower bench-mark grading. The said representation of the petitioner was referred to the third respondent, who in turn directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the