Suitability For Promotion Must Be Left To Domain Experts, Courts Cannot Introduce New Methodology: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that when the Statute provides a specific methodology for determining whether a candidate is suitable for promotion or not, then it is impermissible for the Courts to substitute their views to introduce a different methodology or read words that are not there in the provision.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had conferred a promotion of a Respondent-scientist, to the Senior Scientist post based on the methodology which was never intended or provided under the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001 (“2001 Rules”).

The Court held that where the determination of a candidate's suitability for promotion is entrusted to domain experts, courts cannot, in the absence of any statutory rule or administrative instruction, mandate an averaging of the Annual Performance Reports (APRs)/Performance Mapping Scheme (PMS) scores earned during the prescribed residency period with the Work Report scores for assessing the 85% benchmark. According to the Court, adopting such an averaging formula would amount to reading into the 2001 Rules words and a methodology that the rule-making authority had never prescribed.

“…in absence of specific statutory provision or instructions governing service conditions and, in particular, award of marks for APRs/PMS at the stage of assessment of suitability for promotion, in our view, suitability for promotion must be left to be determined by the domain experts and, in absence of rules, a degree of latitude would have to be provided to them in their assessment of suitability of a particular candidate for promotion. In conclusion, the process of averaging of APRs/PMS marks and marks obtained on the 'Work Report', as has been adopted by CAT and affirmed by the High Court cannot be sustained.”, the Court observed.

Background

The respondent became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Scientist after completing the prescribed residency period in September 2013.

Under the 2001 Rules, promotions are conducted through a two-stage process. First, an Internal Screening Committee shortlists eligible candidate based on their APR/PMS scores. Thereafter, an Assessment Committee constituted by the Recruitment and Assessment Board evaluates shortlisted candidates on the basis of their Work Report and determines whether they are "fit for promotion."

Respondent secured an average APR/PMS score of 92.1%, comfortably clearing the screening stage. However, when the Assessment Committee evaluated his Work Report in September 2016, it awarded him 82%, below the prescribed benchmark of 85%, and declared him "not yet fit for promotion." His representation against the decision was rejected.

Both the CAT and High Court justified the promotion based on the averaging of the APRs, prompting the CSIR to move to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Allowing the CSIR's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Misra noted that both the CAT and High Court misconstrued Para 3(b) of the Circular Letter dated 01.06.2011, which, according to them, mandates averaging of the scores /marks awarded on PMS and the 'Work Report'.

Rejecting their approach, the Court observed:

“The High Court and CAT were of the view that Para 3(b) of the Circular Letter dated 01.06.2011 requires the Assessment Committee to consider both, APR/PMS and the “Work Report”, therefore an average of APR/PMS and the 'Work Report' scores would determine suitability for promotion. We are afraid that such a view is not borne out from Para 3 (b) (supra). What Para 3(b) requires is a consideration of APRs/PMS and the 'Work Report' of the period concerned. As to what marks are to be awarded upon such consideration is not provided for in Para 3 (b), and therefore, it falls within the domain of the Assessment Committee which comprises of domain experts.”

The Court said the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal and High Court effectively rewrote the service rules by introducing an averaging formula that the rule-making authority had never prescribed.

“The view taken by CAT and the High Court that the Assessment Committee would have to award average / mean of the marks of APRs/PMS and the 'Work Report' to determine whether the candidate is above or below the threshold, in our view, amounts to adding words to a provision. It is settled position in law that normally while construing a provision of a statute, it is not permissible to read words which are not there in the provision. Few exceptions to this rule are there; such as, where those words by necessary implication appear to have been accidentally omitted, or where, without those words, certain existing words are deprived of all meaning. Words may also be read to give effect to the intention of the Legislature which is apparent from the Act read as a whole.”, the Court added.

The Court emphasized that promotion of scientists necessarily involves technical evaluation that courts are ill-equipped to undertake.

“…for a scientist the 'Work Report' is of utmost importance. As to what weight is to be attached to the “Work Report” may depend on the nature of the work undertaken. A scientist who is engaged in complex research may not be able to deliver the desired result as compared to one dealing in a less complex subject. In such circumstances, the Assessment Committee, which comprises domain experts, as specified in Para 7.6.315 of the 2001 Rules, must be left with requisite discretion to determine whether a particular scientist has performed well enough to be considered 'fit for promotion'.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH & ORS. VERSUS ANIL EARNEST

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 661

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Arun Sanwal, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Mudgal, AOR Mr. Kshitij Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Ansh Mittal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukund P. Unny, AOR