consistently graded as "Outstanding". However, for the period 01.04.2016 to
16.12.2016, petitioner was graded "Very Good" in his APAR. Being
aggrieved ... said DPC, in terms of
directions of this Court, petitioner‟s APAR grading the year 01.04.2018 to
31.03.2019 was considered as "Very Good
review and
upgradation of his APAR, who vide the Order dated 22.05.2019,
upgraded the APAR grading from „3.1‟ to „6.0‟ for the year ... recording the adverse
remarks and below benchmark grading, therefore, the adverse
remarks/grading in the impugned APAR deserves to be set aside.
44. In view
petitioner is aggrieved of his APAR grading for the years
2012-13 and 2013-14. The petitioner alleges mala fide against the
respondent ... APAR for the relevant period.
8. She submits, by referring to the APAR for the other period, that
the petitioner has almost consistently been graded
thereby making four of his
APARs as 'Very Good', or in the alternative, APAR grading of
'Good' was to be considered ... after
25.07.2016, the following benchmarks for
APARs are applicable:
APAR for Benchmark grading Benchmark
the year for MACP for Level grading for
11 and below
urged
that a grading of '6' is a 'good' grading and not a 'very good'
grading, for which purpose ... APAR without appreciating the fact that
there was an inconsistency in the recording of the APAR. We are,
therefore, of the view that the APAR
communicated
the impugned APAR for the period between 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 to
him. In this APAR, the petitioner was graded as 'good' with ... preceding the period under the impugned APAR. As noted
hereinabove, the petitioner has, under the impugned APAR, been graded as
'good
said grade points the
Petitioner was awarded an overall grading of „Good‟, which was a below
benchmark grading.
4. Aggrieved by the above grading ... numerical grading and the Reviewing
Officer has given final, grading 5.63, while the Accepting
Authority has given 5.00 numerical grading. The Committee also
went through
book, this Court finds that the petitioner in essence
challenges his APAR Grade for the year 2010-11 as according ... adverse APAR grading that Non-Functional Grade Selection
has been denied to him.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that
attitude towards section.
weaker section has
been fair & just.
7
Grade: 7.84 Grade: 7.84=7
01.04.2015 (Manish Kumar, (Davinder Singh, (I.S. Negi ... with equal
sincerity. Fair &
Judicious.
Grade: 8.97 Grade: 8.97 Grade: 8.97 8.97
38. The perusal of the APARs of before and after the impugned
promoted to the rank of
Deputy Commandant on 09.11.2016.
3. The APAR gradings of the petitioner preceding the impugned
period are as under:
Year (Period ... Recommendation, DG‟s Commendation, and the
same is reflected in his APAR gradings.
5. The petitioner was relieved for joining the 150th Bn, Sanai,
Gandhidham
