Promotion cannot be challenged once based on reviewed APARs and seniority consistent with statutory guidelines

The applicant, a Chief Administrative Officer (Sr. Grade) at ICAR, challenged the promotion of Respondent No. 3 to the ranks of Director and subsequently Joint Secretary.

In a DPC held on 25.02.2020, Respondent No. 3 was initially found "Unfit" for promotion because his APAR gradings for 2012-13 and 2013-14 were "Good," which was below the "Very Good" benchmark

Following a representation, the competent authority upgraded these gradings to "Very Good"

Although a subsequent committee again noted past penalties, a supplementary DPC for the 2020 recruitment year and the 2021 panel eventually included Respondent No. 3 and the applicant in the promotion panel

The applicant contended that the upgradation of Respondent No. 3’s ACRs violated the timeframes set in the O.M. dated 23.07.2009 and that his penalties should have disqualified him

1. Whether the official respondents acted illegally or showed undue favor by upgrading the APAR gradings of Respondent No. 3 and subsequently promoting him with retrospective effect

2. Whether the applicant, being junior in the cadre to Respondent No. 3, had a superior right to promotion based on the alleged disqualifications of the private respondent

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 regarding the adjudication of service matters

DoPT O.M. dated 23.07.2009, which prescribes the mechanism and timeframe for preparation and redressal of grievances regarding APARs

DoPT O.M. dated 26.04.2014 concerning the assessment of overall service records, including the effect of penalties on fitness for promotion

The Tribunal examined the service records and DPC proceedings, noting that Respondent No. 3 was senior to the applicant in the feeder cadre (DS/CAO) as per the seniority list circulated on 27.03.2019

While Respondent No. 3 was initially found unfit due to below-benchmark gradings, the Tribunal accepted the respondents' explanation that the subsequent upgradation of his APARs was conducted by the competent authority following proper representations and reports from the Reporting Officer

The Tribunal found that the respondents followed due process and DoPT guidelines in expunging time-barred remarks and assessing overall fitness despite past penalties

Because the Inter Se Seniority List as of 31.12.2021 placed Respondent No. 3 at Sl. No. 9 and the applicant at Sl. No. 10, the Tribunal reasoned that no illegality occurred in promoting the senior candidate ahead of the junior

The Original Application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made