Judicial intervention in performance evaluations is limited unless evidence of malice, mala fides, or perversity is established.

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for expunging the adverse remarks by the impugned order, dated 23.10.2017, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The fact leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant joined the respondent organization, National productivity council on 28.10.1994 as Assistant Director. The Applicant is currently working as Deputy Director at Ambedkar Productivity Training Centre, Ambattur, Chennai. During his tenure at National Productivity Council, Bhubaneshwar as Deputy Director and Director in charge the Reporting officer and Reviewing officer awarded the grading of “Well Above Average in the Annual confidential Reports for the year 2014 – 2015 & 2015 – 2016. However, for the Annual Confidential Report for the year 2016 – 2017, the Reviewing Officer recorded the grading for overall performance as “Below Average”, whereas the Reporting officer had recorded the gradings “Well above Average. On representation from the applicant to review the grading, the respondent and Reviewing officer communicated that the grading will remain “Below Average”. The Reviewing Officer and the respondent’s assessment of the applicant was unfair and not objective and needs to be expunged. Hence the present OA. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that, although the Reporting Officer graded the applicant as “Above Average,” the Reviewing Officer graded him as “Below Average,” indicating an unfair, subjective, and emotionally influenced assessment by the Reviewing Officer. The Reporting Officer acknowledged the applicant’s resourcefulness in business matters and did not dispute the applicant’s achievements or the constraints highlighted in the self-appraisal. Counsel further argued that when there are contradictory assessments by the Reporting and Reviewing Officers, courts have, in various instances, quashed the Reviewing Officer’s remarks.

4. He emphasized that the Reviewing Officer’s observation that the applicant ranked second-last among all RDS in terms of target achievement is factually incorrect. It was further submitted that the respondent organization, the National Productivity Council, is an autonomous, multipartite, non-profit entity. As such, assessing overall performance solely on the basis of revenue targets is unwarranted. The observation of the Reviewing Officer that the “applicant ranks second last among all RDS” is not the criterion to offer an adverse remark, the Reviewing Officer ought to have considered whether the applicant has achieved the target set for him. Therefore, the remarks of the Reviewing Officer is quantitatively damaging and defamatory too.

5. The counsel contended that the constraints acknowledged by the Reporting Officer should have been duly considered by the Reviewing Officer. The failure to do so, and the decision to grade the applicant as “Below Average,” amounts to a subjective, unfair, and one-sided assessment made without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond. In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Ramachandra Raju vs. State of Karnataka , 1996 (5) SLR 643 (SC), the Reviewing Officer’s remarks are liable to be expunged. Therefore, the counsel prays for the relief sought by the applicant is to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the submissions made by the applicant and relied upon the reply statement filed in the matter. He submitted that the question of whether the Reviewing Officer assessed the applicant subjectively or objectively is not ger