Belated challenges to duly communicated APAR gradings cannot be entertained after promotion non-selection.

The applicant, a Senior Divisional Medical Officer in the North Eastern Railway, became eligible for consideration for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) after completing seven years in the Selection Grade. His case was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the 2016–2017 panel, but he was not included in the promotion panel issued on 11 July 2017.

The DPC considered his APARs for 2010–2011 to 2014–2015. While the APARs for 2012–2013, 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 were graded “Very Good”, those for 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 were graded “Good”.

Under Railway Board’s letter dated 15 December 2015, the benchmark for promotion to SAG was “Very Good” in each of the preceding five APARs. The applicant contended that this revised benchmark could not retrospectively be applied to APARs recorded before the circular.

He sought upgradation of his APARs for 2010–2011 and 2011–2012, but his representations were rejected as time-barred because the APARs had been communicated to him in 2011 and 2012, respectively, with a direction to represent within fifteen days. His subsequent review was also rejected.

The respondents stated that the applicant was later considered in the next SAG panel, where his 2011–2012 grading was upgraded for assessment purposes and he was found fit for promotion.

Whether the revised benchmark of “Very Good” in each of the preceding five APARs, introduced by Railway Board’s letter dated 15 December 2015, could be applied while considering the applicant’s promotion for the 2016–2017 panel on the basis of APARs from 2010–2011 to 2014–2015

Whether the applicant was entitled to submit delayed representations seeking upgradation of APAR gradings after he was denied promotion, despite having received and acknowledged the APARs and having failed to represent within the prescribed fifteen-day period

Whether the orders rejecting the applicant’s APAR representations as time-barred and the order rejecting his review were liable to be quashed

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicant invoked the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

It relied on the DoPT O.M. dated 14 May 2009, circulated by Railway Board on 18 August 2009, which required communication of the complete APAR, including the overall grade, and permitted the officer to submit a representation within fifteen days; failure to do so rendered the APAR final.

The Tribunal also applied DoPT O.M. dated 16 June 2000, under which only APARs becoming available during the period relevant to the applicable vacancy or panel year were to be considered, irrespective of delay in convening the DPC.

Railway Board’s letter dated 15 December 2015 prescribed “Very Good” in each of the preceding five APARs as the benchmark for SAG promotion from the 2016–2017 panel year onwards.

The Tribunal referred to the post-*Dev Dutt* regime requiring communication of all APAR entries for transparency and permitting timely representation.

The decisions in *Rajendra Kumar Shukla v. Union of India* and *Ramasubbaiah H. v. Railway Board* were distinguished because they concerned a change from a “Good” benchmark to a “Very Good” benchmark, whereas the benchmark in the present case was already an overall “Very Good” under the earlier system.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had been duly informed of both APARs and had been granted an opportunity to challenge them within fifteen days, but remained silent for approximately seven years.

The applicant’s contention that he had no reason to challenge the “Good” entries because they were not prejudicial under the earlier point-based system was rejected. Even under the earlier system, the overall benchmark was “Very Good”, quantified as 20 points, whereas the applicant’s five APARs yielded only 18 points—three points each for the two “Good” gradings and four points each for the three “Very Good” gradings.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant could not have assumed that his future APARs would necessarily be “Very Good” or “Outstanding”; therefore, he ought to have represented when the “Good” gradings were communicated.

The revised benchmark was not regarded as an impermissible retrospective alteration of the rules after commencement of the selection process because it applied from the 2016–2017 panel year and the APARs had already been communicated with an opportunity for challenge.

The DPC was also correct in considering APARs only up to 2014–2015, notwithstanding the delayed date of the DPC, and was not required to include the applicant’s 2015–2016 APAR.

The special instructions relied upon by the applicant concerning delayed representations under the MACP Scheme were held inapplicable because they concerned non-gazetted staff, whereas the applicant’s case related to promotion of a gazetted officer under the DACP scheme.

The orders dated 13 October 2017, 7 February 2018 and 28 May 2018 were not interfered with. The Original Application was dismissed, all pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.