Incomplete assessment of split APARs and unexplained deviation from UPSC's grading vitiates NFU denial

The applicant, a retired Executive Engineer (Civil), joined the respondent department in 2000.

He was eligible for the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) Level-12 and Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) from 01.04.2013.

While a 2020 UPSC DPC for regular promotion assessed his APAR for 2017–18 as "Very Good," a Departmental Screening Committee (DSC) on 08.03.2022 assessed him as "Unfit" for NFU for the years 2014–2022.

The DSC’s "Unfit" grading was based on a minor penalty (currency ended 30.06.2021) and a selective reading of one part of the 2017–18 APAR (the 8-month period graded 5.32) while ignoring the 4-month part (graded 7.5).

The applicant challenged the DSC minutes as arbitrary and non-speaking.

1. Whether the DSC action in assessing the applicant as "Unfit" was arbitrary, non-speaking, and vitiated by non-application of mind.

2. Whether an APAR recorded in two parts must be assessed conjointly as a single composite record.

3. Whether the DSC’s deviation from a prior UPSC assessment of the same period, without recording reasons, is legally sustainable.

4. Whether the respondents were justified in relying on past adverse entries and expired penalties to deny NFU.

DoP Office Memorandum dated 10.04.1989, which mandates that DPCs must make an objective assessment based on entries in APARs and that all CRs for a single year must be considered together.

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010), which established that recording reasons is a facet of natural justice even in administrative actions.

Principle of "proportionality" regarding minor penalties and the necessity for consistency with constitutional bodies like the UPSC was derived from Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2000) and K.V. Jankiraman v. Union of India (1991).

The "weighted average" principle for split APARs as affirmed in Nirmal Kumar Chawdhary v. Union of India (2023).

The Tribunal found that the DSC's minutes were "non-speaking" because they merely recorded "Unfit" without disclosing the evaluation matrix or reasoning.

Regarding the 2017–18 APAR, the Tribunal held that "cherry-picking" the 8-month segment (5.32 grading) while ignoring the 4-month segment (7.5 grading) was illegal; a proper "weighted average" calculation resulted in a composite score of 6.0, meeting the "Very Good" benchmark.

The Tribunal noted that since the UPSC had already assessed the same record as "Very Good" for regular promotion, the DSC could not deviate without cogent justification.

The Tribunal determined that relying on a minor penalty whose currency had ended, alongside ignored "Very Good" APARs, constituted a disproportionate and mechanical application of administrative power.

It quashed the impugned Minutes dated 08.03.2022 and directed the respondents to convene a review DSC to reconsider the applicant's case for NFU by treating the split APAR of 2017–18 as a composite "Very Good" record, granting all consequential benefits including arrears of pay if found fit.