instructions contained in OM dated May 14, 2009, that below
benchmark grading is required to be communicated within 15 days of
recording of the same ... stated that the plea of
Mr. Bhardwaj that, if the below benchmark grading of APARs has not
been communicated to the employee, the same shall
direction to the respondents to expunge adverse
eniries/below benchmark grading of all 3 ACRs from 3004 to 2008
which had not been communicated ... review
Departmental Screening Committee Meeting by informing of adverse
remarks / belaw benchmark grading from the above period as expunged
while considering him for grant
date (i.e. 23.05.2004). by
ignoring the un-communicated below benchmark
gradings in the relevant ACRs (2000-2001) with all
consequential benefits, including re-fixation ... 2969/2017
Court No. III
adverse remarks or below benchmark gradings in the
relevant ACRs, vitiate the decisions taken on the basis
of the said
that there was no
provision for reconsideration of upgradation of below benchmark grading
given in the APAR by the competent authority, which is contrary ... assessed „unfit‟ owing to below benchmark
grading in the ACR for the years 2006-07 and 2008-09 and, therefore, he
was not promoted with
grading of 'good' recorded in his APAR
and accordingly, such grading of 'good' is a below benchmark
grading and accordingly ... inter se seniority in the feeder
grade. Those officers who are graded „unfit‟ (in terms of
the prescribed benchmark) by the DPC shall
considered the representation of CHS
Doctors for up-gradation of below benchmark grading of ACRs.
In the said list, the name of the applicant ... were intimated but there was
no provision to communicate the below benchmark grading at
that point of time, it was not communicated and only after
Delhi Dated the 13th
April, 2010 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Below
Benchmark gradings in ACRs prior to the reporting
period 2008-09 and objective consideration ... further
noted that it is not the case of below benchmark grading but
a case of recording adverse remarks in the eXtreme. That
the representations
APARs for
the year 2006-07 and 2007-08 had below benchmark
grading, and on his representation, the APAR of the
year ... from 2007-08 to 2011-12. The applicant fulfills the
required benchmark grading of "very good" in all
these years. The applicant
APAR, the Reporting Officer clarified that the remarks
and overall numerical grading given was purely based on his work output,
personal attributes and functional competency ... provision for a „second representation‟ against
adverse remarks/below benchmark grading in an APAR. Hence, the
petitioner was not given the opportunity to make
recorded that overall grading given in the ACR should not be
communicated even when the grading given is below the benchmark
prescribed for promotion ... necessity for communication of the
ACR grading even when the grading given was below the benchmark
prescribed for promotion to the next higher grade
