The court emphasized the need to consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury in granting interim relief, and highlighted the importance of fairness, legitimacy, and objectivity in State actions.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner, who has filed the Original Application ['O.A.'] No.43/129/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal ['CAT'], Guwahati Bench, seeks to question the order dated 22.05.2017 as passed in the said O.A. whereby, the CAT has declined the prayer for interim relief.

2. The impugned order dated 22.05.2017, a short one, is taken note of in extenso as under:-

"Ms. M. Deb, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she fled OA.043/00001/ 2017 for quashing APAR for the period 31.08.2014 to 31.03.2015, which was later on withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. Accordingly this OA.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while the court was seized with the earlier OA, the respondents have supplied the applicant the copy of the APAR for the period 31.08.2014 to 31.03.2015. Learned counsel pointed out the areas of illegality with regard to APAR supplied to him, like the APAR form being issued on 29.03.2017, while the reporting officer has written the comments on 18.04.2016 and the accepting officer accepts the APAR on 06.04.2017. Learned counsel emphazised that prima facie reporting officer s comments are manufactured as he could not have written his remarks on 18.04.2016 in the APAR form which was issued on 29.03.2017.

In view of the above, learned counsel submitted that there is prima facie case for intervention of the court.

Issue notice. Mr. R. Hazarika, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. accepts notices on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2. Notice to other respondents be issued under Rule 11(1)(i) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that during the pendency of the OA the respondents be barred from taking cognizance of the said APAR in deciding the service benefits like promotion etc. as he is in the consideration zone. Learned counsel was specifically asked, suppose, during pendency of the OA the applicant is promoted because of exclusion of the said APAR from the materials available before the DPC and at the final disposal of the OA the applicant looses on merits after hearing both parties, then it will lead to a very unsustainable legal position and the effect of interim order it will be as if the court has decided the case in his favour. The learned counsel agitatedly responded that how can she loose the OA in the APAR as supplied to the applicant has been manufactured by the respondents.

In view of the above query and the reply, the interim relief as requested, cannot be granted. This court, however, not to burden the applicant and subject him go through avoidable further litigation, directs the respondents that all decisions taken by the respondents on the basis of the impugned APAR and even those in which this APAR is placed along with other relevant service material before the DPC/ competent authority will be suo motu reviewed as per the outcome of this OA.

List the matter on 11.07.2017 before the Joint Registrar s court for completion of pleadings."

3. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has extensively referred to the grounds urged in the O.A. and the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 [the Rules of 2007']. With reference to the several requirements of the said Rules of 2007 and facts of the present case, it is strenuously argued that the respondent authorities have neither complied with nor adhered to the requirements of the said Rules of 2007; and not only this, according to the petitioner, the APAR for the period 31.08.2014 to 31.03.2015 was manufactured by the authorities concerned for which, even the APAR form later on issued on 29.03.2017 was used.

4. Though while considering the matter, we have indicated to the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if we assume that the petitioner has a prima facie case in his favour, the Tribunal has declined the interim relief on other relevant considerations about the balance of convenience