Heard Mr. K. Sudhaker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mrs. K. Rajitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2.  The Applicant is working as Commissioner of Income Tax and according to him he is due for promotion to the post of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.  The Respondents on 13.8.2015 sent the copy of the APAR to him for the period of 1.4.2014 to 31.10.2014 communicating that the grading given in the APAR from 1.4.2014 to 31.10.2014 by the Reviewing Officer is 5.1 (Good) as per the assessment of the Reviewing Officer.  Contending that as per the Reporting Officer his grading is 6.8 and that the Reviewing Officer retired in the middle of the year and is not supposed to review his APAR and that the grading given at the end of the year shall only be taken into consideration, the Applicant submitted a representation to the Respondents to review the APARs and assign him the grading of 7.6.  The said representation  dated 1.10.2015 for considering the grading was rejected by the Respondents.  Against the said rejection order, he filed the O.A in which he sought interim relief to issue a direction to the Respondents to re-consider his grading for the purpose of ensuing promotion. 

2.  Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant relied on the DOPT guidelines dated 26.3.2013.  Guideline No.11 lays down that "If the Reviewing authority is transferred/ retires during course of the reporting year his successor will review the APARs if he happens to have three months' expereince about the work and conduct of the Ratee.  Otherwise, the previous Reviewing authority will review the reports at the end of the reporting year."  In the case of the Applicant it is submitted by the learned counsel that the Reviewing Officer retired on 31.10.2014.  Therefore, he is not competent to review the APAR as per Guideline No.11.  He also relied on the guidelines of the Income Tax Department and the Guideline (vi) of the said guidelines shows that in case there are multiple ACRs in a year (i.e.  different part periods), first apply the principles at (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) to the ACRs for a part period to arrive at a single overall grading for that part period.  Then taken a straight average of the points so arrived at for the different part periods.

3.  According to the learned counsel if either of these guidelines are taken into consideration, he comes within the grading of `Very Good' and he will be eligible for promotion. 

4.  Having regard to the said submission, the Respondents are directed to examine the case of the Applicant in the light of the above guidelines and review, his Grading and consider his case for promotion according to the guidelines.

5.  List on 05.06.2018.  In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to file their reply.