25 March 2019 – Delhi High Court (Division Bench) – Promotion to the post of Commandant in C.R.P.F. – Adverse A.P.A.R. – Marks awarded of “Good” but A.P.A.R. rating of “below good” given by the Reporting Officer – Reviewing Officer, in order to match the rating, slashed the marks by 50% - held, unacceptable and illogical – A.P.A.R. rating upgraded to “good” and directions given to C.R.P.F. to grant all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority – C.R.P.F. was also directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)]

Bijendra Singh Bhati, Deputy Commandant, CRPF, was given 5.26 marks in the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (A.P.A.R.) of the period from 01.04.2011 to 22.09.2011 by its Reporting Officer. 5.26 Marks falls in the slab of “good” rating but due to inadvertence, the Reporting Officer gave the rating as “below good”. The aforesaid mistake came to the knowledge of the Reviewing Officer at the time of review. Reviewing Officer, instead of upgrading the rating to “good”, slashed the marks to almost 50% in order to match the rating. The said “below good” rating resulted in denial of promotion to the petitioner to the post of Commandant.

Being aggrieved by the “below good” rating and denial of promotion, Bijendra Singh Bhati preferred a writ petition [Bijendra Singh Bhati Vs. Union of India & Ors. (W. P. (C) 774/2017)] before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Anuj Aggarwal & Saurabh Ahuja, Advocates, counsels for Bijendra Singh Bhati, submitted that Mr. Bhati is an excellent officer and has throughout remained outstanding. It was also submitted that the Reviewing Officer, instead of giving the grade of “good”, has wrongly slashed the marks by 50% and the said procedure was unheard of. Grades (like outstanding, very good, good or below good) are given on the basis of marks and the marks are not given (or matched) with the grade, which was erroneously done in the present case.

Hon'ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar & Hon'ble Mr. Justice I. S. Mehta, Delhi High Court, accepted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and, consequently, allowed the writ petition. Hon’ble Court held that the procedure of matching marks with the grades was unacceptable and illogical. Hon’ble Court directed the CRPF as under:-

“18. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28^th July 2016 passed by the Respondent No. 2 to the extent that it rejects the Petitioner’s request for upgradation APAR for the period from 1^st  April, 2011 to 22^nd September, 2011 as “good” is hereby set aside.

19. A direction is issued to the Respondents to upgrade the APAR of the Petitioner for the aforementioned period 1^st April, 2011 to 22^nd September, 2011 to “good” and extend to him all consequential benefits both monetary as well as seniority within eight weeks from today. Correspondingly, the impugned notification dated 20^th October, 2016, which failed to promote the Petitioner to the post of Commandant (2-IC) is set aside to that limited extent that the Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion and pass consequential orders in that regard within a period of 12 weeks from today.

20. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs.”

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/admin/img/Finalist/2019032815537616692019%20Del%20DB%20-%20BIJENDRA%20SINGH%20BHATI.pdf

http://advocateanujaggarwal.com/home.php