Grading remains valid and non-justiciable for MACP if adverse remarks are expunged but 'Average' rating stays intact.

The applicant, a retired Statistical Investigator (age 72), challenged the denial of his 3rd Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) in Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- effective from 01.09.2008.

The respondents denied the benefit via orders dated 25.07.2018 and 05.02.2019, citing "Average" (below benchmark) gradings in the applicant’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the years 2002-03 and 2005-06.

While the adverse remarks for 2002-03 were expunged upon representation, the "Average" grading remained.

The applicant contended that since he was promoted to Statistical Assistant Gr. II in 2008 despite these ACRs, they should not hinder his MACP.

The respondents argued that promotion and MACP criteria differ; for promotion, a single below-benchmark ACR could be ignored if four others met the mark, but for MACP, the specific gradings for the reckonable period were found insufficient.

1. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the 3rd MACP benefit based on "Average" ACR gradings that were previously ignored during the applicant's regular promotion.

2. Whether the Tribunal can interfere with or upgrade ACR gradings awarded by competent authorities in the absence of proven malice.

Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2010, which mandates the communication of below-benchmark ACR entries to employees to allow for representation.

Legal principles established in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Prabhat Chandra Jain (1996) and Biswanath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar Ors (2001) regarding the communication of adverse entries.

Principle of judicial restraint in administrative matters, holding that Tribunals cannot act as "super evaluators" of ACR gradings unless malice or extraneous considerations are evidenced.

The Tribunal noted that although the adverse remarks for 2002-03 were expunged, the "Average" grading was intentionally kept intact by the competent authority.

The applicant failed to prove any bias or malice that would warrant judicial interference with these technical evaluations.

Regarding the inconsistency between the 2008 promotion and the MACP denial, the Tribunal accepted the respondents' explanation: for the promotion to Statistical Investigator Gr. III, the rules (ORGI letter dated 31.07.2006) permitted ignoring one below-benchmark ACR if four others were "Good".

For MACP, the eligibility criteria and the reckonable period of ACRs differ from those of regular promotion, meaning the two processes are not inextricably linked.

Original Application No. 1182/22 was dismissed as being devoid of merit; no costs were awarded.