Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an IAS officer's challenge to the rejection of his review application against non-empanelment for promotion to the Chief Secretary grade. Applying the principles in Badrinath, the Court held that the Review Committee could consider the entire service record; adverse entries prior to the 2016 promotion were weak material but a continuing post-promotion trend of indiscipline, including a year of unauthorised absence in 2019-20, justified the decision, which was neither mala fide nor Wednesbury unreasonable.
Issues
- Whether the Review Committee travelled beyond the reasons of the Screening Committee by relying on additional or extraneous material, including adverse ACR entries prior to the appellant's 2016 promotion, a fact-finding report and observations of the CAT.
- Whether adverse ACR entries relating to a period before an earlier promotion can be considered in assessing suitability for a further promotion.
- Whether the failure to fix a benchmark score rendered the assessment arbitrary or discriminatory.
- Whether the decision denying promotion warranted interference as mala fide or unreasonable.
Provisions considered
- Rule 3(1), Note 1 (Clause VI of the Principles regarding Promotion of Members of IAS); Rule 2, Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 2016Selection to the Chief Secretary grade is governed by Clause VI of the Principles appended to Rule 3(1): the zone of consideration is officers with 30 years' service and selection is by a Screening Committee. The argument that no benchmark score was fixed under Rule 2 was held to be of little consequence because Clause 7.2 of the Guidelines states that no benchmark is to be fixed. (¶¶ 1, 23)
- Clauses 4.1, 6, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 23, General Guidelines for Promotion and functioning of Screening Committees (IAS)Clause 4.1 requires 90% of ACRs before a proposal is placed; Clause 7.1 permits consideration of available ACRs and the Committee's own assessment of entries; Clause 7.2 provides for 'Fit'/'Unfit' grading with no benchmark; Clause 7.3 requires penalties, displeasure and commendations to be considered; Clause 23 permits review only where material facts were not considered or there were grave procedural errors. The appellant was assessed as a 'special case' on available ACRs although 90% were not available. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 5, 23)
- Article 16, Constitution of IndiaThrough the principles summarised in Badrinath, the Court reiterated that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right requiring fair consideration, and that courts do not interfere with a DPC's assessment unless it is Wednesbury unreasonable or mala fide. (¶¶ 17, 24)
Held
- Applying Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu, a Committee considering promotion to the highest echelons of the civil service is entitled to consider the officer's entire service record, but adverse entries prior to an earlier promotion lose their sting and are to be treated as weak material unless they relate to dishonesty or lack of integrity. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Pre-promotion adverse entries not relating to dishonesty cannot by themselves constitute a ground to deny promotion to the next higher grade, but where the post-promotion service record shows a similar trend of lack of discipline or interpersonal skills, it may lend assurance to the Committee's conclusion that the earlier promotion has not invigorated the officer, justifying denial of further promotion. (¶ 19)
- The Review Committee's decision was not based solely on pre-promotion ACR entries or on uncommunicated observations in a fact-finding report; it also took into account the appellant's unauthorised absence for about a year in 2019-20, later treated as non-duty, after a show-cause notice. (¶ 20)
- The Review Committee did not supply new reasons or look into additional material; it merely amplified the rationale of the Screening Committee in the light of the submissions and material placed by the appellant, and its observation that high grades had been given to the appellant to allow him a chance for correction reflected a fair and objective assessment of both commendations and adverse conduct. (¶ 21)
- Individual excellence may hinder commitment to discipline, decorum and collegiality; given the requirement of collective leadership at the highest level of the civil service, the Committee was justified in giving due weight to lack of adherence to discipline and collegiality. (¶ 22)
- Failure to fix a benchmark score cannot be treated as a marker of arbitrariness or discrimination where Clause 7.2 of the Guidelines states that no benchmark is to be fixed and the appellant was considered as a special case despite 90% of his ACRs being unavailable. (¶ 23)
- The Committee's decision was neither mala fide nor so unreasonable that a person of ordinary prudence could not have reached it; the Screening Committee's decision had not been assailed, the appellant's case was again considered and rejected in 2021 and 2022, and the High Court had already granted liberty to seek generation of 90% of the ACRs and reconsideration. No case for interference was made out. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's order, which had left the appellant at liberty to approach the authorities for preparation of his ACRs and reconsideration for promotion after 90% of ACRs are available, was not interfered with.