Tahsildar v. Union of India & Ors.

1. By way of this writ petition, upgrading of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (hereinafter referred as „APARs‟) of the years 2009- 10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 to 2016-17 from „very good‟ to „outstanding‟, with consequential relief of promotion is sought by petitioner.

2. Petitioner’s Representations of 14th May, 2015 and 15th July, 2015 seeking promotion have been disposed of vide Communication of 20th August, 2015 (Annexure P-31) whereby petitioner has been informed that his case for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as „DPC‟) on 30th December, 2013 and again on 24th June, 2015, but he had not been recommended for promotion on basis of his performance as reflected in the APARs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter, petitioner had made Representations for reconsideration of the APARs in question 2018:DHC:3377 and the said Representations have been declined. It is pointed out that the APARs rating for the year 2016-17 (Annexure P-45) does modify the rating, but the grading remains „very good‟.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that to earn a promotion, petitioner requires three outstanding APAR gradings, out of five. It is the submission of petitioner’s counsel that prior to year 2009, the APAR gradings of petitioner were ‘outstanding‟, but since petitioner had filed a court case against illegal appointments made by respondents, therefore, respondent has adopted vindictive attitude and has mala fidely downgraded petitioner’s APAR ratings from „outstanding‟ to „very good‟ to deny promotion to petitioner.

5. The next submission of petitioner’s counsel is that although petitioner had sought information under the RTI Act, but the required information even under the RTI Act, has not been provided to petitioner. Attention of this Court is drawn to petitioner’s Representation of 27th November, 2015 (Annexure P-34) vide which petitioner had called upon the fifth respondent to provide the details of the colleagues/peers with whom petitioner purportedly did not have requisite coordination and the said information has not been provided till date.

6. Reliance is placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Supreme Court’s decision in Sri M.A. Rajshekhar vs. The State of Karnataka & Anr. JT 1996 (7) 708 to submit that reference to the specific instances ought to be provided to enable the employee to correct himself and if it is found that the employee did not work objectively or satisfactorily, then opportunity ought to be given to him to correct the mistake. Thus, it is submitted by petitioner’s counsel that petitioner’s APARs deserve to be considered as „outstanding‟ and petitioner ought to be granted promotion from the year 2013, when it was due to him.

7. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned Communication of 20th August, 2015 (Annexure P-31), material on record and the decision cited, I find that this Court’s power of judicial review does not extend to reassess an employee and to overrule the authorities concerned in matters of recording of APARs/ACRs. Respondent’s refusal to upgrade petitioner’s APARs from „very good‟ to „outstanding‟ does not lack objectivity nor can it be said that there is non-application of mind. Infact, review of petitioner’s APARs reflects due application of mind as petitioner’s marks have been increased, but the grading remains the same. It is the assessment of the authorities concerned that petitioner’s relations with colleagues and subordinates is not upto the mark, which has resulted in comparatively low grading, so far as personal attributes of petitioner are concerned.

8. To say the least, employer cannot be called upon to disclose the name of the colleagues with whom petitioner has low level of compatibility. Reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon Sri M.A. Rajshekhar (supra) is of no avail as in the said decision, there was lack of objectivity, whereas in the instant case, petitioner’s APARs have been objectively reconsidered. In matters, like instant one, the scope of judicial intervention is minimal as this Court cannot step into the shoe of an employer. It is so said as Supreme Court in Union of India v. S.P. Nayyar, (2014) 14 SCC 370 has reiterated as under: - “It is settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by the DPC. If the assessment made by the DPC is perverse or is not based on record or proper record has not been considered by the DPC, it is always open to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to remit the matter back to the DPC for recommendation, but the High Court cannot assess the merit on its own on perusal of the service record of one or the other employee.”

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out for quashing the remarks/ratings awarded to petitioner for the period in question and to upgrade the overall grading of petitioner’s APARs from „very good‟ to „outstanding‟. No case for remitting the matter back to respondents is made out as I find no perversity in the reconsideration of petitioner’s APARs and the impugned order. Since petitioner does not meet the benchmark, therefore, promotion sought has been rightly declined to petitioner by the respondent.

10. In light of aforesaid, this petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE MAY 22, 2018 s