Authorities cannot keep the figurative assessment by RO after they deemed his box grading as “subjective” and “inconsistent,” according to the Delhi High Court.

The Delhi High Court noted that when the authorities deemed the Reviewing Officer’s assessment in Box Grading as “subjective” and “inconsistent,” they should not have removed just the Box Grading while keeping the figurative assessment intact. The Court was considering a Writ Petition from an Army Ordnance Corps officer, currently a Brigadier and Head of the Faculty of Higher Ordnance Management at the College of Material Management. He challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision that dismissed his Original Application. The Petitioner also contested the Orders made by the Respondents. Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur remarked, “…once the respondents found the assessment by the RO in Box Grading as “subjective” and “inconsistent,” they could not have expunged only the Box Grading while retaining the figurative assessment by the RO.” Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Nigam represented the Appellant, while CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also appeared for the Appellant.

The Petitioner in this case is an officer in the Indian Army who has consistently received high-performance ratings throughout his career. Even with an “Outstanding” record, he experienced downgrades in his confidential reports (CRs) for the periods of April-August 2009 and July 2018-June 2019. These downgrades affected his opportunities for the National Defence College (NDC) and promotions, leading to his non-selection. After some corrections that removed one downgrade, he was still not selected due to the remaining CRs. The Armed Forces Tribunal supported these decisions. Consequently, he filed Writ Petitions to challenge the CRs. The Court noted that the respondents should not have only removed the Box Grading given by the Reporting Officer (RO) while keeping the assessment of the Petitioner’s potential qualities intact. The Court also pointed out that the entire report from the RO should have been expunged since some parts were “subjective” and could affect the Petitioner’s career. The Court stated that if the assessment is not “balanced” and “consistent,” it cannot be used as a basis for the Petitioner’s promotion. It also mentioned that when looking at the “assessment variation,” the respondents only compared the CR average variation with the Petitioner’s past OAP, which is just one factor and not the sole basis for evaluating the CR.

The Court stated that the Respondents did not take into account other important factors needed for assessing the variation, as outlined in the guidelines. Therefore, the Court partially approved the Petition.

Cause Title: Gopal Mohan Atri v. Union of India (2024:DHC:8250-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Arvind Kumar Nigam, Advocates Manish Sangwan and Ashwani Tehlan
Respondent: CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Advocates Srish Kumar Mishra and Alexander Mathai Paikaday