APAR‟) for the period between 01.04.2015 to
31.03.2016, wherein a below benchmark grading of „3.1‟ has been
awarded to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner also ... office of the Commandant.
However, the petitioner received a below benchmark grading of „3.1‟
with the remark „Average‟ for the period from
year 1998-1999 contained a below-benchmark grading, that is,
'Average', and did not meet the prescribed benchmark for the grant of
Signature ... communicated to the officer, and not the
adverse or below-benchmark grading.
6. The petitioner admittedly represented against the adverse
remarks contained
next higher post on the ground of having below benchmark
grading (BBM) for the relevant years under consideration in his ACRs. According
to the petitioner ... years 2005-06 and 2006-07 he was
considered having below benchmark gradings and therefore, he was not
considered for promotion. According to the petitioner
benchmark for
promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting
the benefits under MAU'S as mentioned in para 17
ibid, the benchmark ... benchmark for
promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting
the benefit under MACPS as mentioned in para 17
ibid, the benchmark for promotion shall
benchmark for
promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting
the benefits under MAU'S as mentioned in para 17
ibid, the benchmark ... benchmark for
promotion is lower than the benchmark for granting
the benefit under MACPS as mentioned in para 17
ibid, the benchmark for promotion shall
Scheme based
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
7
on the required benchmark grading, indicating eligibility for career
progression under this scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents
further ... gradings since 1.9.2008.
Applicant No. 2 had mostly 'Average', or 'Good' gradings, with only
one 'Very Good' grading since
ignoring such of those ACRs containing the below benchmark
grading which were not communicated and which, therefore could not have
been taken into account while ... year
2006 2007 is "Average" which is Below the Benchmark grading of "Good".
2006-2007
Since this ACRs was reckoned
gradation
Up Category Pre-Revised
Revised Revised grading
Grading Criteria criteria as
approved in the
267th BODM held
on 22.12.2010
From Scale A From
Scale ... various grades on the basis of
following fitness criteria:
Sl. For Upgradation Category Pre-revised
Pre Revised
No. From To Scale Grading Criteria Grading
Scale
Review DPC
by excluding the ACR 2005-06, as the below
benchmark grading was not communicated before
holding the DPC/ CPC for promotion ... whereby ACR for the year 2005-06 was enclosed containing
below benchmark grading for the year 2005-06 and he was
intimated to represent against
case of the applicant but did not recommend due to below
benchmark grading of APAR for 2017-2018 with 5.75 marks. The
screening committee ... revised benchmark shall be
applicable to the APARs for the years 2016-2017 and subsequent years.
Prior to 25.07.2016 benchmark grading for MACP
