Supreme Court holds CSIR assessment panel need not average PMS and Work Report scores
A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan set aside CAT and Karnataka High Court orders, holding averaging of PMS and Work Report marks was reading words into the promotion rules.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Assessment Committee constituted under the CSIR Scientists Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2001 was not required to arithmetically average a scientist’s Performance Mapping Scheme (PMS) scores with the marks it awarded on his Work Report to decide suitability for promotion. Deciding an appeal by the Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, a Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan set aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru and the Karnataka High Court that had adopted such averaging. The Court held that the amended rule required consideration of both APR/PMS and the Work Report, but did not dictate how marks were to be awarded. That, it said, fell within the domain of the expert Assessment Committee. The original application filed by the respondent scientist stood dismissed.
How the promotion dispute reached the Court
The respondent, Anil Earnest, sought promotion from Scientist to Senior Scientist with effect from 19 September 2012, along with consequential benefits. He filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, challenging the Assessment Committee’s recommendation dated 14 September 2016 and an Office Memorandum dated 16 November 2017.
His case was that in the four years up to 19 September 2013 he had secured PMS grades averaging 92.1%, qualifying him for assessment. The Assessment Committee that met on 14 September 2016 did not recommend him. His representation was rejected by an order dated 6 November 2017, which recorded that the Committee awarded 82% on appraisal of the Work Report—below the threshold of 85%.
The scientist argued that the Committee should have averaged the 92.1% PMS score with the 82% Work Report score, producing a figure above the 85% threshold, and that he was therefore entitled to promotion from the date of eligibility.
CSIR responded that promotion under the 2001 Rules ran in two stages. The Internal Screening Committee under Rule 7.5 first screens candidates on averaged APR/PMS marks against the threshold in Rule 7.4. Those cleared are assessed by the Assessment Committee under Rule 7.6.1, which awards its own marks on the Work Report and interview and records a candidate as “fit for promotion” or “not yet fit for promotion”.
What the CAT and High Court had held
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application on 19 March 2019. It proceeded on the premise that the scientist had secured about 92% in PMS and 82% on the Work Report, and that the average of the two exceeded the 85% threshold. It declared him eligible for promotion “from 2012 onwards” and issued a mandate to act within two months.
CSIR filed Writ Petition No. 30846/2019 before the Karnataka High Court. By order dated 10 February 2021, the High Court found no fault with the Tribunal’s reasoning but held the Tribunal could not have issued a mandamus for promotion. It remanded the matter, directing the employer to hold a review Departmental Promotion Committee within 90 days. A review petition was dismissed on 3 November 2023.
Why averaging amounted to adding words to the rule
The Court framed the central question as the proper construction of the 2001 Rules after amendment by paragraph 3(b) of the Circular dated 1 June 2011. That paragraph states that, for the levels concerned, “the assessment will be based on the Annual Performance/PMS and Work Report for the period of assessment.”
The Court held that paragraph 3(b) required consideration of APR/PMS and the Work Report, but was silent on how marks were to be awarded. Reading in a requirement to average the two scores, it said, amounted to adding words to the provision. It reiterated the settled position that words not present in a provision are not normally to be read into it, save recognised exceptions such as accidental omission or where existing words would otherwise be robbed of meaning.
The Court noted that consideration of APR/PMS was already built into the two-stage process, since the Internal Screening Committee shortlists candidates on their APR/PMS before the Assessment Committee considers the Work Report. Absent a rule to the contrary, consideration of APR/PMS did not oblige the Committee to award marks on that basis.
Discretion of the expert body and the Article 14 argument
The respondent had argued that without averaging, the rule would confer unguided power and offend the rule against arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court rejected this. It held that paragraph 3(b) gave sufficient guidance by requiring the Committee to consider both APR/PMS and the Work Report, and that how much weight to assign, if any, was best left to the Committee of domain experts constituted under Rule 7.6.3.
The Court observed that for a scientist the Work Report is of utmost importance, and that a scientist engaged in complex research may not deliver the same results as one in a less complex field. The expert Committee, it said, must retain discretion to judge whether a scientist has performed well enough to be considered fit for promotion. It also recorded that there were no allegations of mala fide against any Committee member, that the scientist was later found suitable for promotion, and that there was no serious challenge to the vires of paragraph 3(b).
Order
The Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court misconstrued the 2001 Rules as amended by paragraph 3(b) in holding that an average of APR/PMS and Work Report marks would determine suitability for promotion. The appeals were allowed. The judgments and orders of the High Court and the Tribunal were set aside, and the Original Application filed by the respondent was dismissed. Pending applications were disposed of, with no order as to costs.