An APAR grading not challenged within the prescribed period cannot be reopened after subsequent rule changes.

The applicant challenged his “Average” grading in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for 2011–2012.

The APAR had been communicated to him on 26 November 2012, with an opportunity to submit a representation within fifteen days; no representation was made within that period.

The applicant submitted a representation only in December 2016, which was rejected by order dated 27 December 2016. He thereafter filed the present Original Application in 2018.

He also argued that, under the earlier NFU rules, he had already secured the requisite 20 marks by 2011–2012 and therefore had no reason to challenge the grading earlier.

Whether the applicant could challenge the “Average” APAR grading for 2011–2012 after failing to submit a representation within the prescribed fifteen-day period following its communication on 26 November 2012.

Whether the subsequent amendment of the NFU and promotion rules in 2015 furnished sufficient justification for the applicant’s delay in challenging the APAR grading.

Whether the applicant’s assertion that he had already secured the requisite marks under the earlier NFU rules justified his failure to challenge the APAR in 2012.

The Tribunal applied the principle that an APAR assessment must be challenged within the period stipulated in the communication, failing which the employee is deemed to have accepted it and the assessment becomes final.

It further held that an APAR cannot remain perpetually open and that an employee cannot challenge an assessment years later merely because a subsequent change in service rules makes the grading disadvantageous.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that a speculative or subsequently arising apprehension regarding NFU eligibility does not extend the time for challenging an earlier APAR grading.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Tribunal found that the cause of action arose when the APAR was communicated on 26 November 2012 and the applicant was expressly granted fifteen days to submit a representation.

Since he failed to act within that period, the grading was deemed accepted and could not be challenged nearly six years later through the 2018 Original Application.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that the 2015 rule amendment created a fresh cause of action, holding that the applicant’s rights had to be assessed based on his failure to challenge the APAR when it was communicated.

It also rejected his claim concerning the earlier NFU regime because he had not established that he had secured the requisite 20 marks, particularly as the grading for 2009–2010 was not shown and the relevant five-year period extended through 2013–2014.

Further, the applicant could not have known in 2011–2012 what gradings he would receive for the subsequent years, which were also relevant to NFU assessment.

His explanation was therefore held to be unconvincing and an afterthought.

The 2015 amendment to the NFU rules and the applicant’s unsubstantiated claim regarding his earlier marks did not justify the delay.

The Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs; any pending miscellaneous applications were closed.