Court Can Interfere With Annual Performance Appraisal Reports Only Where Grading Is In Violation Of Rules/Guidelines, Actuated By Malice, Or Unfounded & Arbitrary: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court was considering a BSF Officer's Writ Petition seeking setting aside of the Adverse Remarks and grading endorsed in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report.

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Annual Performance Appraisal Reports can be interfered with by the Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution mainly where the APAR grading is found to be in violation of some rules or guidelines, actuated by malice, or being unfounded and arbitrary.
Through the Writ Petition, the petitioner, a BSF Officer, sought for setting aside the Adverse Remarks and below Benchmark grading endorsed in his Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) for the years 2021-22. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondents to upgrade his APAR for the years 2021-22 with all consequential benefits.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur asserted, “Merely because the petitioner’s APAR for the previous year graded him as ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Very Good’ cannot mean that for the relevant year, based on his performance, he cannot be graded as ‘Good’”.
Advocate S.S. Hooda represented the Petitioner while CGSC Bhagwan Swarup Shukla represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner had joined the Border Security Force (BSF) as Assistant Commandant (Direct Entry) in 1993. He was promoted to the rank of Commandant and is due for promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG). He has an unblemished record in his entire 29 years of service and has regularly been graded as ‘Outstanding’ and ‘Very Good’. The petitioner was aggrieved of the fact that in his APAR for the period 2021-22, he has wrongly been graded ‘Good’ and has been given a numerical grading of only 5 and, the Reporting Officer has also endorsed adverse remarks in the Impugned APAR.
Arguments
It was his case that the Reporting Officer placed undue emphasis on the Advice issued to the petitioner for allegedly being dressed in civilian clothes during the final rehearsals of the Annual Inspection. It was submitted that it was only later that the DIG changed his decision and decided that the final pre inspection rehearsal shall be conducted out of the Quarter Guard and that all officers shall also be present in uniform. This change in decision was, however, not communicated to the petitioner. It was also his case that the Impugned APAR was written with a pre-determined mind and to condemn the petitioner in a vengeful manner.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained the limited jurisdiction to be exercised in testing the APAR and said, “It is only in very limited circumstances that the APAR can be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. These are mainly where the APAR grading is found to be in violation of some rules or guidelines, actuated by malice, or being unfounded and arbitrary”
Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench held that the plea of the petitioner that DIG changed his instructions at a later stage, which was not communicated to the petitioner, did not inspire much confidence. The petitioner did not protest against the Advisory until the adverse remarks were recorded in the APAR and the protest appears to be only as an after-thought, by a representation.
Another circumstance related to the retention of the file of the Board proceedings. It was noticed that though the petitioner had asserted that he went on leave, the file remained with him for 13 days. The Bench was of the view that if the petitioner was proceeding on leave, he should have ensured that the Board proceedings file is cleared before he proceeds on leave. This again showed a casual attitude of the petitioner towards his work and consequently, no fault could be found in the pen picture recorded by the Reporting/Initiating Officer in his APAR.
“Writing an APAR is an annual exercise and depends on the performance of the officer in that particular year/period. It cannot be disbelieved or branded as arbitrary only because of the officer’s prior grading”, it said while also adding, “...in our view, the assessment of the Reporting/Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer that these showed his lack of interest or attributes demanded from a Commandant (Ops), cannot be faulted.”
Dismissing the Petition, the Bench affirmed the assessment of the Reporting/Initiating Officer and the Reviewing Officer that these circumstances showed his lack of interest or attributes demanded from a Commandant (Ops)
Cause Title: Ajit Kumar v. Union of India & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 4-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate S.S. Hooda
Respondents: CGSC Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Advocate Sarvan Kumar