APARs completed contrary to prescribed timelines must be treated as non est.

The applicant, a Deputy Director General in the Geological Survey of India (GSI), challenged the Reviewing Authority’s reduction of his APAR gradings for the two split periods of Field Season 2019–2020 to 4.50 and the accompanying remarks.

His Reporting Officers had awarded gradings of 6.37 and 6.12 for the respective periods.

He had submitted representations dated 3 December 2020 challenging the assessments and approached the Tribunal alleging, among other things, that the competent authority had not decided them on merits.

The applicant submitted the APAR forms on 1 October 2020, well after the prescribed 15 April deadline.

Whether the APARs for the two periods of Field Season 2019–2020, processed outside the prescribed DoPT timetable, should be treated as non est.

Whether the applicant’s case for promotion should be considered without relying on the APAR for 2019–2020.

The Tribunal applied the timetable in the DoPT Office Memorandum No. 21011/1/2005-Estt(A)(Pt-II), dated 23 July 2009, which prescribes dates for submission, reporting, review, disclosure, consideration of representations, and completion of the APAR process.

Under that timetable, self-appraisal is due by 15 April, the Reporting Officer’s report by 30 June, and the Reviewing Officer’s report by 31 July; the process is to be completed by 30 November.

The Tribunal held that the prescribed timetable must be adhered to and that the APARs in question, processed outside it, ought to be treated as “Non Est”.

The Reporting Officers recorded their assessments on 20 October and 2 November 2020, and the Reviewing Authority recorded its assessments on 18 November and 3 December 2020.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, the Reporting Officers, and the Reviewing Authority had all failed to adhere to the prescribed timetable.

On that basis, rather than determining the merits of the disputed gradings or remarks, it held that both APARs for 2019–2020 should be treated as non est.

It further directed the respondents to consider his case for promotion, if he was otherwise eligible under the applicable rules, without relying on that APAR.

No order as to costs was made.