The pathology of performance appraisal system-insights from supreme court rulings

Abstract

Performance management, like other management practices espouses that control is necessary to enable subordinates to achieve their potential, and that without such control, production would be suboptimal or abysmally low (Willmott, 1984). Performance management is instrumental in generating competition among employees, and this sense of competition can degenerate into allegations of manipulation, lack of transparency and denial of voice. Issues of denial of voice are seen in the case of Arvind Kumar Saxena versus Brij Raj Kishore Ranga and others (Supreme Court, 2005 September 28) where the post of Superintending Mining Engineer in the Rajasthan Civil Services was to be filled through an assessment of merit of the candidates. The procedure for filling the posts was the assessment of Annual Performance Appraisal reports, and candidates had to have a rating of 'very good' in at least five of the seven previous appraisal reports in order to be considered for promotion. The contention of an aspirant Arun Kumar Kothari was that he had the requisite rating of 'very good' in five out of the seven previous appraisals, and yet he had been overlooked.