The main legal point established in the judgment is that Performance Appraisal Reports must be communicated to the employee within a reasonable period and should not be considered for promotion if not communicated.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby quashing the Performance Appraisal (PAF) Reports for the year 2010-11 and 2015-16 and the Promotion Process and the list of Promoted Candidates w.e.f. 25.04.2015 and 27.05.2016 and subsequent promotions out of the list of empanelled executives and also the list of wait listed executives and further promotions in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19, regarding promotions from Senior Management Scale IV to Scale V, selected and promoted by officers of the respondents. He further seeks direction thereby commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner in Senior Management Scale V, with all consequential benefits from retrospective effect from 25.04.2015. He also seeks direction thereby commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner in Senior Management Scale V, with all consequential benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier on 12.02.1981, promoted to the post of Scale I Officer on 17.10.1988, Scale II Officer on 20.08.1998, Scale III Officer on 13.07.2004 and to Scale IV Officer on 30.08.2010. The petitioner has outstanding record of service to his credit throughout the service of 36 years. As per the promotion policy circular no.252 dated 11.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), the promotion policy for 2014-15 was allowed to be continued for the promotion process for the year 2015-16 and onwards, according to which selection process from Scale IV to Scale V was proceeded. There shall be only one channel of promotion of officers from SMG Scale IV to SMG Scale V, namely Merit Channel. Accordingly, minimum experience-3 years of service in Scale IV, with minimum length of service 12 years and in addition, the experience as Branch Head at least 3 years in any Scale is required for the promotion from Scale IV to Scale V.

3. Selection parameters for the promotion process 2015-16 were as under:

Performance	50
Interview (minimum qualifying Marks 30%)	30
Group Discussions	20
Total	100

(i). From amongst the applicants, the number of candidates to be called for group discussion and interview shall be determined in terms of the procedure given in clause 11 of the Policy. The eligible candidates will be called in the order of seniority.

(ii). The marks for performance of the 5 preceding years would be reckoned. The weightage for Performance Appraisal Form (PAF) parameters shall be assigned as illustrated in para 4(a) in the policy.

4. As the petitioner was called for the Written Test, Interview and Group Discussion, the relevance of Clause 11 of the policy, becomes immaterial in the present petition. However, as per promotion policy circulated vide circular No.741 dated 30.03.2016 (Annexure P-6) promotion from Scale IV to Scale V for the promotion process2016-17 also required the average of marks obtained as per Performance Appraisal Form—Annual Performance Appraisal Report (PAF-APAR) for the previous 5 years, as a contributory factor for promotion. As per policy, vacancies in SMG Scale V were to be filled up by promotion from SMG-IV, through merit channel only. The marks under various selection parameters were as under:

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL REPORT(APAR)	50
WRITTEN TEST	20
INTERVIEW	25
GROUP DISCUSSION	05
TOTAL	100

    

Minimum Qualifying Marks For Written Test	30%
Minimum Qualifying Marks For Interview	50%

5. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the written test, interview and group discussion for the process of 2015-16.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the focus shifts to Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the last five years i.e.