ORDER : 1. The petitioner, by way of filing the present writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ order or direction: (i) The impugned APAR for the assessment year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 (Annexure-3) may kindly be declared as illegal on the ground of non-compliance of guidelines issued by the respondent authorities. (ii) The impugned APAR for the assessment year 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 (Annexure-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to undertake fresh assessment proceedings for a preparation of APAR for the year 2022-2023. (iv) The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of General Manager (HR) after revising the APAR for the year 2022-2023......” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed in service of the respondent No. 1 organisation i.e. National Power Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as NPCIL) on the post of Deputy Manager (P&IR). Thereafter, by way of the order dated 21.8.2018, the petitioner came to be promoted to the post of Additional General Manager (HR), which is the feeder post for further promotion to the post of General Manager (HR). 3. Learned counsel submitted that the essential criteria/eligibility for consideration for the promotion to the post of General Manager (HR) is experience of five years’ service on the post of Additional General Manager (HR) coupled with achievement of five consecutive outstanding APARs (Grade A1). The petitioner had consecutively received Grade A1 in the APARs for the years from 2019 to 2022 (Annex.2). However he was awarded with Grade A2 (Annex.3) in the year 2023 and being aggrieved thereby, he submitted representations to the Director (HR) NPCIL through email (Annex.4 & 5 dated 11.05.2023 and 24.05.2023 respectively) bringing to the notice of the aforesaid authority the bias and unfair approach adopted towards the petitioner while granting the grade for the reporting year 2022-23. The petitioner thereafter submitted various emails and correspondences to the respondent department ventilating his grievances but the same did not yield any fruits. 4. The petitioner thereafter submitted various emails and correspondences to the respondent department ventilating his grievances but the same did not yield any fruits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the grievance of the petitioner in a nutshell is that though his performance was assessed by the Reporting/Assessing officer Shri Sunil Gadgil, OS, Site Director, for the reporting period 2022-2023, as Grade A2 by awarding 89.58 marks, however, another Reporting/Assessing authority Shri Surendra Bhushan Joshi, OS, ED (Projects-PHWR) while making an additional assessment of his performance, under whom the petitioner worked for a very brief period, has awarded him 84.34 marks for the same reporting period and awarded him Grade A2. He thus submitted that, the Reviewing Authority, the Countersigning Authority and the Final Accepting Authority, after going through the reports of Assessing Authority and Additional Assessing Authority have accepted the assessment report submitted by Reporting/ Additional Assessing Officer and maintained the marks (84.34) awarded to the petitioner by him while giving him Grade A2. 5. It was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the communication (Annex.3) whereby he was communicated APAR Grading for the period 1.4.2022-31.03.2023. The petitioner has also prayed that by quashing the impugned communication (Annex.3) respondent authorities may be directed to undertake fresh assessment proceedings for the period 1.04.2022-31.03.2023. Learned counsel submitted that a prayer has further been made that respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the promotion on the post of General Manager (HR) after revising/re-assessing his APAR Grading for the period 1.04.2022-31.03.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though the petitioner has worked on the post of Additional General Manager in the respondent organisation for the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 with the best of his abilities, yet instead of awarding him Grade A1 (Outstanding), his performance has been assessed as “very good” and he has been awarded Grade A2. Learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner who has been awarded A1 throughout, consecutively for four years, has been awarded A2 in the reporting year 2022-23 just to deprive him of promotion on the next higher post. 7. Learned counsel submitted that Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority without any basis and cogent reasons awarded him 84.34 marks which is lower than the marks awarded to him by his Reporting/Assessing authority being 89.58 marks. 7. Learned counsel submitted that Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority without any basis and cogent reasons awarded him 84.34 marks which is lower than the marks awarded to him by his Reporting/Assessing authority being 89.58 marks. It was submitted that Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority had no occasion to review/examine the performance of the petitioner for the entire reporting period, i.e. 2022-23 as the petitioner had worked under him for a very brief period. Drawing attention of the court towards the communication dated 13.03.2023 (Annex.6) issued by the respondent organisation under subject ‘eAPAR for Non-Technical personnel including those belonging to Official Language cadre for the period 2022-23’ learned counsel submitted that the Reporting/ Additional Assessing Authority being the Project Director should not have awarded the grading and instead he should have furnished his opinion only, regarding the work and performance of the petitioner, to the higher authorities viz. Reviewing Authority with his report. 8. In other words, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, the award of grading and marks to the petitioner by the Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority for the period of 01.04.2022-31.03.2023 is ex-facie arbitrary and illegal. According to him, the only power he possessed was to give his opinion on the assessment made by the Site Director and thus by making a fresh assessment, he rather exceeded his jurisdiction. It was also urged that the Reviewing Authority and Accepting Authority have accepted the report of the Additional Assessing Authority blindly without forming any independent opinion of their own, thereby depriving the petitioner of award of appropriate marks and grading for the reporting year 2022-23. 9. Learned counsel thus implored the court to accept the writ petition and grant the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the present writ petition is absolutely misconceived and is devoid of any merit whatsoever. As per them, for promotion to the post of General Manager (HR), the experience, of five years of service on the post of additional manager (HR) with 5 consecutive outstanding APARs (Grade A1) is an essential requirement to be possessed by an incumbent. Learned counsel submitted that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has mainly attacked the marks and grade awarded to the petitioner for the reporting year 2022-23 by the Additional Reporting/Assessing Authority ignoring the fact that even the Assessing Authority has also awarded him Grade A2. Learned counsel submitted that in the present writ petition, the petitioner has mainly attacked the marks and grade awarded to the petitioner for the reporting year 2022-23 by the Additional Reporting/Assessing Authority ignoring the fact that even the Assessing Authority has also awarded him Grade A2. Thus even if the marks and grade awarded to the petitioner for the reporting year 2022-23 awarded by Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority are ignored, then also, petitioner would not become eligible for promotion to the post of General Manger (HR). 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is in absolute conformity with ‘The Guidelines for Implementation of Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR) in Respect of Non-Tech. Executives in NPCIL’ (Hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines 2011”) dated 30.06.2011 (Annex.R/1) which in detail provide the procedure for assessing the performance of the non-technical executives from Assistant Managers and above in HR, F&A and C&MM Cadre, including Company Secretary and Deputy Company Secretary. Learned counsel submitted that the Clause 7.2 of the communication dated 13.03.2023 (Annex.6) clearly states about the intention of the corporation (common for all in the hierarchy) of the corporation management that the independent assessment by two or more authorities of the APARs is in the interest of corporation as a whole. Learned counsel thus submitted that the additional reporting/ assessing authority is not alien in the matter as the petitioner had worked under him and thus the authority had sufficient opportunity to closely examine the performance of the petitioner. It was further urged that ‘Guidelines 2011’ clearly elaborate the role of the Project Director and the Site Director being the Additional Assessing Authority and the Assessing Authority respectively and thus the process adopted in arriving at the grade of the petitioner being lawful does not warrant any interference whatsoever. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents thus implored the court to dismiss the present writ petition and vacate the stay on the result of the interviews dated 20.06.2023. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar and perused the material available on record. 14. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents thus implored the court to dismiss the present writ petition and vacate the stay on the result of the interviews dated 20.06.2023. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar and perused the material available on record. 14. Relevant portion of the communication dated 13.03.2023 and guidelines - 2011 are reproduced herein-below: “Communication dated 13.03.2023: 7.2 As per the directives enunciated in the office Order No. NPCIL/Acting CMD/GEN/003/2022 dated 04/02/2022, the APAR for the year 2022-23 onwards in respect of Heads of HR, Finance, C&MM and CTC located at brown field sites of NPCIL, in addition to Assessment by Reporting Officer viz. Project for opinion before forwarding to Reviewing/Counter signing/Final Accepting Authority. Wherever two or more Project Directors are posted at the same Site, the APAR will be routed through both the Project Directors for opinion in the order of their increasing seniority. ................ 8.0 APAR Related Communications: The format for communication of overall grading and the format for requesting for detailed assessment sheet will be the same as for the previous reporting year 2021-2022.” “Guidelines 2011: 3.2 Harmonization of the Assessment Process (i) A module has been developed and provided in the “CHARMS” for filling in the eAPAR on-line by the officer-reported-upon. The method of filling up eAPAR will be as per Annexure-II. The officer reported upon may note that in the event of delay in submission of eAPAR, the eAPAR will be electronically stamped with the stamp “Late submission.” Therefore, all executives will have to ensure completion of eAPAR timely. A provision has been made in eAPAR to condone the late submission by the Reporting Officer/Reviewing Officer/Countersigning Officer/Final Acceptance Authority, depending upon the merits.” Annexure-2: STEPS FOR FILLING IN AND COMPLETING THE eAPAR ON-LINE 2. REPORTING/ASSESSING OFFICER OPTION 1: Assess the APAR (a) The Reporting/Assessing Officer has to select from the list of assesses as to whose assessment is to be done. (b) On clicking his/her name, the Reporting/Assessing Officer gets access to assessment form of that officer. (c) Where the submission of eAPAR has been delayed by the “Officer Reported Upon”, the eAPAR will be stamped electronically to display “LATE SUBMISSION.” In such cases, the Reporting/Assessing Officer will have option to condone the delay and process the assessment further. (d) In the assessment form click on the markings against each attributes. (c) Where the submission of eAPAR has been delayed by the “Officer Reported Upon”, the eAPAR will be stamped electronically to display “LATE SUBMISSION.” In such cases, the Reporting/Assessing Officer will have option to condone the delay and process the assessment further. (d) In the assessment form click on the markings against each attributes. (e) After completing the marking click the button “Get Grade.” (f) Grade will appear. (g) If desired the marking can be temporarily saved by clicking Save. (h) Press “NEXT” Button on the screen. (i) The Reporting/Assessing Officer will get a popup message asking to confirm whether he wants to go to next screen. (j) In case Reporting/Assessing Officer presses CANCEL Button, he will be taken back to Assessment Form Screen. (k) Wherever the marking is ‘X’ APPLIES, ‘TENDENCY TO ‘Y’ or ‘Y’ APPLIES the Reporting/Assessing Officer has to substantiate those assessments in the next screen ‘Justification Screen’ without which one cannot proceed further (for ‘X’ Applies marking minimum 15 characters, ‘Tendency TO ‘Y’ or ‘Y’ Applies 50 characters. Maximum number of characters for each 150). (l) During this stage one can go back to the assessment form and can do any modifications, if needed by clicking BACK button. (m) After substantiating all such columns where the marking is ‘X APPLIES, ‘TENDENCY to ‘Y’ or ‘Y’ APPLIES one can go to general remarks by clicking NEXT button. (n) Under general remark Reporting/Assessing Officer has to give general remarks about the officer reported upon and the state of health of the officer reported upon using pull down menu options. (o) If the Reporting/Assessing Officer wants to change the length of service, he can change suitably the entry against the column length of service using Calendar Buttons. (p) Once finalized, select the Reviewing Officer and then click SUBMIT Button. Once submitted nothing can be changed by the Reporting/Assessing Officer. OPTION 2: Additional Assessments/Opinion (a) The current Reporting/Assessing Officer, besides doing assessment with respect to the part period for which the officer reported upon had actually worked under him, can forward to another Reporting/Assessing Officer under whom the officer reported upon had worked, may be for part periods, during the reporting year. (b) He has the choice to forward to other officer by selecting OTHER in the dropdown list. This selection is mainly for those whose services have been rendered to other Group without actually transferring. (b) He has the choice to forward to other officer by selecting OTHER in the dropdown list. This selection is mainly for those whose services have been rendered to other Group without actually transferring. (c) The assessment of current Assessing Officer and the other Reporting/Assessing Officer will then go to the Reviewing Officer who will do the balancing. (d) The user can select multiple officers by searching by name & employee number and by clicking SAVE Button. (e) After adding multiple names to the list, all the names should be checked at the right side and for each of the entries, reason for additional assessment should be specified which is mandatory. (f) Finally click SEND to send the APAR for multiple assessment to the officers selected. (g) Option has also been provided to obtain opinion about the officer reported upon from the officers/executives from other Unit/Group/Directorate with whom the officer reported upon had inter-acted during the reporting year. This option is available to the Reviewing Officer/Countersigning Officer/Final Accepting Authority. In case, the Reporting/Assessing Officer had decided to send the APAR for additional assessments, he gets the summary table showing the status of the APARs sent for additional assessments (Total sent, received after assessment, received without assessment and called back) In case the officer to whom the APAR was sent for additional assessment is not available due to leave, absence, tour or any other reasons, the Reporting/Assessing Officer can call back the APAR sent to him/her by clicking CALL BACK button and justifying the reasons for calling back. ................ 3. REVIEWING OFFICER: Follow the steps listed against items (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) under item 1. Go to APAR Part II ................ 3. Reviewer can view the APAR of the officer reported upon by clicking VIEW APAR button. Then he/she has to click VIEW MARKINGS button for viewing the marking of the previous Assessors. He can also view the remarks of the Reporting/Assessing Officers by clicking VIEW REMARKS button against the ASSESSOR’s name. 4. While viewing markings given by Assessors, Reviewer may or may not agree with the markings............” 15. Then he/she has to click VIEW MARKINGS button for viewing the marking of the previous Assessors. He can also view the remarks of the Reporting/Assessing Officers by clicking VIEW REMARKS button against the ASSESSOR’s name. 4. While viewing markings given by Assessors, Reviewer may or may not agree with the markings............” 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the grade awarded to the petitioner by the Reporting/ Assessing Authority has not been stepped down by the Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority like falling from “outstanding” to “very good.” The Reporting/Assessing authority and the Reporting/Additional Assessing Authority, both have awarded Grade-A2 (very good) to the petitioner. However, the marks awarded by Assessing Authority have been reduced by the Additional Assessing Authority. This Court also finds that it is not in dispute before this Court that the petitioner had worked under Additional Assessing Authority for some time and therefore Additional Assessing Authority had an opportunity to closely scrutinise the work, judge the qualities and performance of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had worked under Additional Assessing Authority, it cannot be said that the said authority had no power to write the confidential report of the petitioner or he had no opportunity to fairly assess the work and performance of the petitioner. 16. This Court also finds that “Guidelines-2011” and various circulars/communications issued on the subject pertaining to system of submitting Annual Performance Assessment Report (APAR), provides for provision of routing the eAPAR of head of HR through Project Director/Project Directors for their opinion. The opinion is to be provided by the Project Director/Project Directors under whom the concerned employee has worked in an impartial and objective manner with highest sense of responsibility so as to improve performance and efficiency of the employee. 17. “Opinion” would normally mean what a person thinks about somebody or something. The opinion thus, can be expressed by various means, even by way of giving marks after assessing the performance of an employee. 18. This Court thus, does not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Assessing Authority/Project Director could not have made fresh assessment or provided marks to the petitioner after assessing his performance in his APAR. 18. This Court thus, does not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Additional Assessing Authority/Project Director could not have made fresh assessment or provided marks to the petitioner after assessing his performance in his APAR. It is also to be noted that the APAR process in Corporate Human Assets and Resources Management System (CHARMS) is such that, when an opinion is sought from an official about the officer reported upon a fresh electronic sheet is made available for opinion for marking against all parameters. 19. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to suggest that Additional Assessing Authority/Project Director has not followed the eAPAR process provided in CHARMS or without having any authority of law has exceeded his jurisdiction and provided additional opinions. 20. This Court also finds that after receiving reports of Assessing Authority as well as the Additional Assessing Authority/Project Director, the Reviewing Authority while maintaining the marks and grades awarded to the petitioner by the Additional Assessing Authority, has given its independent reasoning/findings. The representations/e-mails submitted by the petitioner have also been examined and responded to by the authorities of the respondent-organisation. 21. It is a settled law that Writ Court can interfere in the matters challenging APARs/ACRs, in exceptional circumstances, for compelling reasons, where it comes to the conclusion that Superior Authority/Reporting Authority/Assessing authority had no occasion to formulate its opinion about the work and performance of an employee or there was no occasion for the authority concerned to record entries. 22. In the result, this Court finds that the assessment done by the Assessing Authority and Additional Assessing Authority for the period commencing from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and the final assessment arrived at by the Reviewing Authority, the Countersigning Authority and the Final Accepting Authority does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. 23. Consequently, the present writ petition and all pending applications are dismissed being devoid of any merit. 24. No order as to costs.