Belated challenge to below-benchmark APAR gradings is barred by finality once the prescribed representation period expires.

The applicant, an Insurance Medical Officer (IMO) Grade I, challenged the rejection of her representations seeking to upgrade her APAR gradings for the years 2012-13 and 2013-14 from 'Good' to 'Very Good'.

She was denied promotion to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) by DPCs held in 2018, 2021, and 2022 because these specific APARs fell below the 'Very Good' benchmark.

The applicant contended that the Reporting/Reviewing officers failed to follow timelines and were incompetent to write reports post-retirement.

The respondents argued that the APARs were communicated in 2015, but the applicant failed to represent within the mandatory 15-day window, rendering the gradings final.

1. Whether the applicant can seek upgradation of APAR gradings after a substantial delay of 7-8 years despite missing the statutory 15-day representation window.

2. Whether the APARs for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were recorded in violation of prescribed procedural timelines and competence rules.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective promotion to the post of CMO.

DoP&T OM dated 14.05.2009, which stipulates that an officer must represent against APAR entries within 15 days, failing which the report is treated as final.

DoP&T OM dated 23.07.2009 regarding the time schedule for preparation and completion of APARs.

DoP&T OM dated 08.02.2002, which requires a 'Very Good' grading for promotion to the scale of Rs. 7600/- (CMO).

The principle of Administrative Finality was invoked to prevent the reopening of settled assessments after inordinate delays.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was duly communicated her gradings in September 2015 but failed to exercise her right to represent within the 15-day limit prescribed by the 2009 OM.

The Tribunal observed that the respondents produced evidence showing the reports were completed within the prescribed schedule; hence the APARs attained legal finality.

The court noted that even if minor deviations existed, the applicant’s silence for 7-8 years during which multiple DPCs relied on these records constituted an 'unexplained and inordinate' delay.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's reliance on higher-scale benchmarks (Joint Secretary level), clarifying that the 'Very Good' benchmark was correctly applied to the CMO post under the 2002 guidelines.

The O.A. was dismissed as being devoid of merit, and the court declined to quash the impugned rejection orders or direct a Review DPC.