Individual Excellence May Sometimes Lead To Superiority Complex: Supreme Court Dismisses IAS Officer Raju Narayana Swamy's Plea For Promotion
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the decision of the High Court, which noted that 90% of the Appellant’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) were not available.
Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Supeme Court
The Supreme Court dismissed an Appeal by Raju Narayana Swamy, an IAS officer, challenging his non-promotion to the grade of Chief Secretary in Kerala, while remarking that “Individual excellence may sometimes lead to superiority complex and hinder commitment to discipline, decorum and collegiality.”
While noting that the essential requisite of collective leadership in the highest echelons of civil service, the Court stated that “the Committee was justified in giving due weightage to lack of adherence to discipline and collegiality.” The Court refused to interfere with the decision of the Kerala High Court, which noted that 90% of the Appellant’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) were not available and the Screening Committee was “handicapped” in considering his case.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked, “During hearing of his review application, appellant alleged his reporting authorities were biased and threatened to sue them for defamation. Refuting such claim, Review Committee observed noting the appellant’s brilliance he had been awarded high grades to give him a chance for correction, which he failed to utilize. Such observation shows a fair and objective assessment by Review Committee after taking into consideration both commendations and adverse conduct of appellant.”
Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Raju Narayana Swamy (Appellant), a 1991 batch IAS officer with a distinguished academic background, was considered for promotion, a process governed by specific rules and guidelines. These guidelines mandate a Screening Committee to assess eligible officers with 30 years of service.
The Screening Committee, tasked with selecting officers for the Chief Secretary grade, did not find the Appellant suitable for promotion. This decision was based on an overall assessment, including factors like adherence to discipline and collegiality, despite the unavailability of 90% of his ACRs.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “Mr. Basant’s argument that no benchmark score was fixed as per Rule 2 of IAS (Pay) Rules, 2016 is of little consequence. Clause 7.2 of the Guidelines unequivocally states that no benchmark is to be fixed. Be that as it may, failure to fix benchmark score cannot be treated as a marker of arbitrariness or discrimination since appellant was considered as a ‘special case’ though 90% of his ACRs were not available.”
The Court noted, “The Review Committee had examined the entire service record of appellant and noted that in 2019-20 appellant had absented himself for about a year without justifiable cause. A show cause notice was also issued in this regard. Subsequently the said period has been treated as ‘non-duty’ i.e. absence without leave. This conduct was taken into consideration to deny promotion to appellant to the highest echelon of civil service. It cannot be said that the decision of the Review Committee was solely based on adverse entries in ACRs/PARs prior to promotion or on uncommunicated observations in the Fact Finding report.”
The Bench held, “In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said the decision of the Committee is either mala fide or so unreasonable that a man of ordinary prudence would not have come to such a conclusion. It may also be relevant to bear in mind that Screening Committee decision had not been assailed by appellant.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Much water has flown since then. In 2021 as well as 2022, appellant’s case was again considered and rejected by the Screening Committee. Thereafter, the High Court has again given opportunity to the appellant to approach the authorities concerned for generation of 90% of the ACRs and reconsideration of his case. Given this situation, no case for interference is made out and the appeal is dismissed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Raju Naryana Swamy v. State of Kerala & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 563)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate R Basant; AOR Subhash Chandran K.r.; Advocates Krishna L R, and Raunak Arora
Respondents: Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka; AOR Nishe Rajen Shonker and Sarvshree; Advocate Soumya Sandilaya
