Representation against APAR grading filed beyond the prescribed fifteen-day limitation period is legally unsustainable.

The applicant, a Deputy Chief Materials Manager at N.F. Railway, challenged the rejection of his representation against adverse entries and downgrading in his Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) for the year 2017-2018

Due to the impending retirement of the Accepting Authority, the APAR process was expedited in January 2018

The Reviewing Officer downgraded the applicant's score from 6.01 ("Very Good") to 5.92 ("Good") without providing specific reasons

Using the "SPARROW" electronic system for the first time, the applicant inadvertently clicked the "I accept" button instead of filing an objection

He received the entries on February 2, 2018, but submitted a manual representation only on April 3, 2018, which the respondents rejected as time-barred and final

1. Whether the rejection of the applicant's representation against his APAR grading was legally sustainable given the delay in submission and the "I accept" electronic confirmation.

2. Whether the downgrading of the applicant's grading by the Reviewing and Accepting authorities without recorded reasons necessitated a review.

Office Memorandum (OM) dated May 14, 2009, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), specifically Clause (iv) of Para 2, which mandates that an officer has 15 days from the date of receipt of APAR entries to submit a representation

Swamy’s Compilation on Confidential Reports, which stipulates that if no representation is received within the 15-day window, the entries are deemed final and the officer is presumed to have no objections

The Tribunal found that the applicant admitted to receiving the APAR entries on February 2, 2018, yet failed to file his representation until April 3, 2018—a delay of two months

The court reasoned that the statutory 15-day limit for challenging APAR entries has been a well-established rule since 2010, and a senior officer of the applicant's rank is expected to be cognizant of such procedural requirements

The applicant's plea of "inadvertent error" in clicking the acceptance button on the SPARROW system did not override the clear expiration of the limitation period defined in the DoP&T OM

Consequently, since the representation was submitted significantly past the deadline and after electronic acceptance, the respondent authorities were justified in treating the APAR as final

The O.A. was dismissed, and no costs were awarded