Appraisal representations must be decided in accordance with fairness and transparency guidelines.

The petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Assam Rifles, challenged the order dated 18 October 2022 rejecting his representation against the EPAR for 25 July 2019 to 3 March 2020.

He contended that the Administrative Reviewing Authority reduced his grading without basis, despite favourable assessments by the Administrative Reporting Authority and the Technical Reporting and Reviewing Authorities, and that the rejection order gave no reasons.

The Union of India maintained that the Reviewing Authority could assess the petitioner’s performance and that the relevant officer was sufficiently familiar with his work.

The petitioner sought quashing of the rejection order and acceptance of the other authorities’ assessments.

1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the reduced EPAR could stand when the applicable Office Memorandum’s guidelines had not been taken into account.

2. Whether the petitioner’s representation should be reconsidered in light of the Office Memorandum dated 14 May 2009.

The Court relied on the Office Memorandum dated 14 May 2009 concerning the maintenance and preparation of Annual Performance Appraisal Reports and communication of all entries.

It identified the Memorandum’s purpose as promoting fairness and transparency in public administration and held that its specific guidelines must be taken into account when deciding the matter.

The Court considered the parties’ submissions and the Office Memorandum, and found that the guidelines directed at fairness and transparency had not been taken into account when the impugned order was passed.

It therefore set aside the order and directed the Director General, Assam Rifles, to reconsider the petitioner’s representation afresh under the Memorandum, rather than itself determining the appropriate EPAR grading.

The fresh decision is to be made within 90 days of production of a copy of the order.