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
mere fact that the
petitioner had not challenged the below benchmark grading in the
ACR for the year 2007-08 even after its communication, would ... parties.
12. It is not disputed that the below benchmark grading of the
petitioner in the ACR for the year 2007-08 had not been
Good' which is below the benchmark and he did not
meet the benchmark grading in 3 out of his 5 APARs ... falls due on or after
25.07.2016, the following benchmarks for
APARs are applicable:
APAR for Benchmark grading Benchmark
the year for MACP for Level grading
Thereafter for upgradation under the
MACPS the benchmark of „good‟ would be
applicable till the grade pay of Rs.6600/- in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally ... MACP falls due on or after
25.07.2016, the following benchmarks for
APARs are applicable:
Benchmark grading Benchmark grading for
APAR for
for MACP for Level
APAR.
27. The petitioner was communicated the adverse remarks and
below benchmark grading recorded in his APAR, vide Letter dated
15.02.2021.
28. The petitioner made
praying for the
setting aside of the Adverse Remarks and below Benchmark
grading endorsed in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports
(in short, 'APAR
Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 1998-99 contains a
below benchmark grading, that is, "Average", and, therefore, does not
meet the prescribed ... submits that as
the below-benchmark grading has not been communicated to the
petitioner, therefore, the same could not have been taken into account
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
however,
despite having an unblemished service record with consistent above
benchmark APAR grades, the petitioner was overlooked for
promotion. Instead, his batchmates and junior officers
