A belated representation against APAR grading cannot revive a claim barred by delay and laches.

The applicant, a 2002-batch Indian Railway Service of Signal Engineers officer, was transferred to the post of Dy. CSTE/Tele/Works after publication of a tender for comprehensive maintenance of an integrated security system. He was subsequently appointed Convenor of the Tender Committee.

Although the Committee recommended negotiation with the lowest bidder, the Tender Accepting Authority rejected the recommendation and discarded the tender.

For the year 2018–19, the Reporting Authority awarded the applicant “Good” grading and made adverse remarks concerning his attitude and handling of the tender. The Reviewing Authority restored the grading to “Very Good”, but the Accepting Authority again graded him “Good”, with an overall score of 5.29.

The applicant alleged that this below-benchmark APAR grading resulted in his supersession for promotion to SA Grade.

The applicant submitted a representation against the APAR on 30 May 2023, nearly three years after the APAR process had concluded. The representation was rejected on 7 August 2023 on the ground that it was belated and contrary to the applicable 15-day period for submitting representations against APAR entries.

The applicant challenged that order before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Whether the applicant’s belated representation against the 2018–19 APAR grading was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches?

Whether the order dated 7 August 2023 rejecting the representation was cryptic, non-speaking, or otherwise liable to be quashed?

Whether the Tribunal should examine the merits of the adverse APAR remarks and direct revision of the grading and consequential consideration for promotion?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 14 May 2009, particularly paragraph 2(iv), and the corresponding provision in Swamy’s Compilation, under which an officer must submit a representation against APAR entries or grading within 15 days of receiving them.

The Tribunal also applied the general principles of limitation, delay, and laches, holding that a stale claim cannot be revived merely by submitting a belated representation and challenging its rejection.

The respondents relied on Union of India v. C. Girija, Civil Appeal No. 1577 of 2019, decided on 13 February 2019, concerning the impermissibility of reviving a time-barred claim through a subsequent representation.

The APAR for 2018–19 had been completed by the relevant authorities by 19 July 2019, and the SPARROW system had closed on 31 March 2020.

Under the applicable DoPT instructions, the applicant had only 15 days from receipt of the APAR entries to submit a representation. He admittedly did not do so within that period and instead submitted his representation on 30 May 2023, after a delay of almost three years.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s own statement that he had intentionally refrained from making an earlier representation to avoid a dispute with the administration as an admission explaining, but not excusing, the delay.

Since the representation itself was substantially belated, the rejection order correctly relied on delay and the applicable APAR procedure. The Tribunal therefore found that the order was not cryptic or non-speaking.

Having concluded that the representation and the Original Application were barred by delay and laches, the Tribunal considered it unnecessary to determine whether the adverse remarks or the “Good” grading were substantively justified.

The order dated 7 August 2023 was found to be reasoned and legally sustainable.

The reliefs seeking quashing of the order, expunging or revising the APAR grading, acceptance of the Reviewing Authority’s score, and consequential consideration for promotion were consequently denied.

The O.A. was dismissed, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.