HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13649 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Jayant Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2,3 and 4. 2. This is a second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, petitioner has filed a Writ No. 10312 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2025 and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter :- "Heard Sri Jayant Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Purnendu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for Union of India and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. Sri Jayant Maurya, learned counsel for petitioner and a young lawyer has placed his case effectively, however, there are some adverse factors which he may not be able to satisfy, firstly that there is a delay of 7 years in approaching this Court against annual appraisal report of 2017-18, petitioner has not taken any step to represent against down grading of A-1 bench mark to A-2 bench mark since he has not filed any representation in last 7 years except a recent representation dated 27.06.2025. Learned counsel for petitioner has able to show that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jayant Maurya, Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Krishna Mohan Asthana Manik Chand .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) counseling ought to have been conducted by independent members being not part of considering annual appraisal report, though no provision of law in support of it is shown, still it has some substance. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that since petitioner has now filed a representation and he is about to retire on 30.09.2025, and aforesaid annual appraisal report may be an adverse factor for promotion, therefore, this writ petition may be disposed of that his case be considered in a time bound manner. In the aforesaid circumstances, a chance is given to petitioner to submit a fresh representation within seven days and concerned respondent i.e. respondent No.4 will look into the grievance of petitioner and will take a decision before petitioner retires. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation. " 3. In compliance of aforesaid order, the representation was considered by respondent No.4 (Deputy General Manager (Finance and Account), N.A.P.S., Unit-1 & 2, Narora, District- Bulandshahr, however, it was rejected by an order dated 01.09.2025, which is reproduced hereinafter :- "Referring the representation, grievance on your APAR for the period 2017-18 is reviewed through all related inputs. The Clause 9 of the NPCIL e-APAR guidelines for the period along with the Annexure-1 is referred, wherein an employee is given an opportunity to put a representation upon in case aggrieved of his/her e-APAR and directed to be disposed through a paperless counselling process as annexed thereto. For re-examining the case, your e-APAR dossier for the period 2017-18 was retrieved from HR-Establishment office. As revealed from APAR dossier, you had filed online representation on 3rd May 2018 on the e-APAR portal as per schedule. Your e-APAR process was concluded on 4th June 2018 with counselling remarks followed by re-acceptance. The referred e-APAR guidelines does not contain any directive regarding selection of Counselling Officers (CO). The Final Accepting Authority is vested with absolute WRIA No. 13649 of 2025 2 decision for selection of COs. It is fourid that the specified procedure in Counselling process annexed to e-APAR guidelines is well followed with respect to your representation dated 3rd May 2018. Opportunity for representation and counselling is exhausted during the process of e-APAR 2017-18. Therefore, no scope is envisaged of intervention or reinstatement in this case." 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that APAR grading of petitioner which was earlier A-1 but was down graded to A-2. The assessment of Sandeep Kumar Gupta, one of the members was accepted by other two members without making any independent assessment. A-1 bench mark was given by Reporting Officer and Review Officer, however, it was changed and without any specific reason, counselling was conducted by two members who were part of earlier assessment process, therefore, there was no scope that the grievance of petitioner could be considered. 5. Learned counsel for respondent submits that allegation of malafides are not specifically mentioned in the writ petition and other two members have agreed with A-2 grade granted to petitioner by accepting reason and it was not mandatory that every member has to pass an independent order. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, since this Court while considering the case at the first round of litigation has observed that there is no provision that counseling should be conducted by a person being not a member and, therefore, in absence of any allegation of malafide, the argument of learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. By a due process, the grading was granted and only on ground that it was down graded from A-1 to A-2, the Court cannot interfere with decision of concerned respondent since the Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry. The petitioner was granted just less than 9 marks and, therefore, granted A-2 bench mark and earlier he was granted just about 9 marks i.e. A-1 bench mark and, therefore, in absence of any specific allegation of malafide and it being a unanimous decision of all 3 members, based on WRIA No. 13649 of 2025 3 material and that Court cannot act like an Appellate Authority specifically when no procedural impropriety or bias was shown. Accordingly, there is no ground to interfere with impugned order and writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. September 11, 2025 P. Pandey WRIA No. 13649 of 2025 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad