Assessment Committee Not Bound To Average APR/PMS Marks With "Work Report" Score To Determine Promotion Eligibility: Supreme Court
The Bench said that reading a mandatory averaging formula into Circular that merely requires "consideration" of both parameters amounts to adding words not found in the provision.
The Supreme Court has held that where a service circular requires an Assessment Committee to consider both the Annual Performance Reports/Performance Mapping Score (APR/PMS) and a candidate's "Work Report" while determining fitness for promotion, this does not mandate that the Committee mathematically average the two scores to arrive at a final percentage, holding that reading such a formula into the provision amounts to impermissibly adding words that are simply not there.
The Court further held that in the absence of an express rule prescribing the weightage to be assigned to each parameter, the extent of discretion in awarding marks based on a candidate's Work Report must be left to the Assessment Committee, which comprises domain experts, since the nature and complexity of a scientist's work can vary considerably and only such experts are equipped to judge whether the delivered output reflects genuine merit warranting promotion.
A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Manmohan observed, “…having regard to the nature of the post, 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. More so, when Para 3(b) of the Circular dated 01.06.2011 does not envisage such procedure”.
“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…”, the Bench noted further.
Advocate Arun Sanwal appeared for the appellant and Mukund P. Unny, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The respondent, a CSIR scientist, claimed promotion to the post of Senior Scientist with effect from September 19, 2012 under Rule 7.4.1 of the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001, relying on "Outstanding" and "Excellent" Annual Performance Reports averaging 92.1%.
However, the Assessment Committee awarded him 82% for his Work Report, below the 85% benchmark under Rule 7.4, declared him "not yet fit for promotion," and rejected his representation by Office Memorandum dated November 06, 2017, stating that the Committee had discretion to adopt its own assessment methodology.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru, held that the respondent's PMS score (92%) and Work Report score (82%) should be averaged, thereby crossing the 85% threshold, and directed his promotion from 2012.
The Karnataka High Court upheld this interpretation of Paragraph 3(b) of the CSIR Circular dated 01 June, 2011, but directed a review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) instead of granting direct promotion, therefore, CSIR challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 3(b) of the CSIR Circular requires consideration of both the Annual Performance/PMS and Work Report, but does not mandate averaging of marks.
It noted that the CAT and High Court effectively read an averaging formula into the circular, which was impermissible.
The Court further observed that the existing two-stage assessment process, screening based on APR/PMS followed by evaluation of the Work Report by the Assessment Committee, adequately considered performance, and that the weightage to be assigned was a matter for expert bodies.
“In our view, paragraph 3(b) of Circular dated 01.06.2011 provides sufficient guidance to the Assessment Committee by requiring it to consider APR/ PMS and the ‘Work Report’ for determining whether a candidate is suitable for promotion or not…As far as consideration of APRs/PMS is concerned, that is built-in in the two-stage process of appraisal inasmuch as the Internal Screening Committee shortlists candidates based on their APRs/ PMS for further consideration by the Assessment Committee which then considers the “Work Report”. Besides, in absence of rule to the contrary, consideration of APRs/PMS by the Assessment Committee does not mean that it would have to award marks on basis thereof”, the Bench noted.
“At this stage, we may observe that 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’”, it noted further.
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, while the judgments and orders of the Karnataka High Court and CAT were set aside, and the respondent's Original Application before CAT was dismissed. No order as to costs.
Cause Title: The Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research & Ors. v. Anil Earnest (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 677)
Appearances:
Appellant: Arun Sanwal, Vikalp Mudgal, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Mukund P. Unny , AOR.