Holding

The Schedule timelines are directory, the Accepting Authority complied with the mandatory Rule 5(1), and the High Court erred in interfering with the specialised administrative appraisal, so the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The State of Haryana appealed against a High Court order that set aside a CAT decision which had upheld the Chief Minister’s downgrade of an IAS officer’s performance appraisal score. The officer’s self‑appraisal was initially graded 8.22 by the Reporting Authority, raised to 9.92 by the Reviewing Authority, and then reduced to 9 by the Accepting Authority. The officer filed a representation under the PAR Rules, which remained pending, prompting a CAT application that was dismissed on the ground that the Accepting Authority had complied with the mandatory timeline of Rule 5(1). The High Court interfered, expunging the Accepting Authority’s remarks and restoring the higher grade, citing procedural unfairness. The Supreme Court examined whether the timelines in the Schedule were mandatory or directory and whether the High Court should have intervened under Art 226. It held that the Schedule’s timelines are directory, the Accepting Authority met the mandatory Rule 5(1) deadline, and the High Court lacked the specialised expertise to reassess the officer’s competency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the Accepting Authority directed to decide the pending representation within 60 days.

Issues considered

Whether the timelines prescribed in the Schedule to the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 are mandatory or directory.
Whether the High Court was justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the CAT order and alter the appraisal grades of an IAS officer.
Whether the contravention of the Schedule’s timelines renders the appraisal remarks invalid.
Whether the High Court should intervene in the specialised administrative assessment of an IAS officer’s performance.

Legislation cited

All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007s. Rule 5(1), s. Rule 9(7B)
Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

IAS OfficerEffect of non-adherence of timelinesPower of High Court under Art. 226Performance Appraisal ReportJudicial restraint

Judgment

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 393 : 2024 INSC 190

The State of Haryana
v.
Ashok Khemka & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 3959 of 2024)
11 March 2024
[Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in interfering with the order of
the Central Administrative Tribunal which approved the decision of
Accepting Authority altering the Personal Appraisal Report score
under All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules,
2007.

Headnotes
The Principal Secretary, State of Haryana challenged before
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh branch,
Chandigarh the decision of the Accepting Authority, Chief
Minister of Haryana downgrading his Performance Appraisal
Report (the “PAR”) score - No provision in the PAR Rules
indicating that a contravention thereof would render the
PAR in question invalid or would be met with any identified
immediate consequence.
Held: When a provision declares no serious consequences for
non-adherence of timelines then it becomes directory- The Authority
has met the timelines prescribed under Rule 5(1) of the PAR
Rules and complied with the mandatory timelines prescribed - No
reason to expunge the remarks and overall grades awarded to 1st
Respondent. [Paras 19-21]
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Whether the interference of
the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) by the
High Court was warranted – Principles discussed.
Held: The overall grading and assessment of IAS Officers requires
an in-depth understanding of different aspects of an administrative
functionary such as their personality traits, tangible and quantifiable
professional parameters which may include inter alia the
competency and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem-

* Author
394 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

solving and decision-making skills; planning and implementation
capabilities; and the skill to formulate and evaluate strategy - High
court erred in entering into a specialized domain, i.e., evaluating
the competency of an IAS officer - No requisite expertise and
administrative expertise to conduct such an evaluation - Appeal
allowed [Paras 27-28 & 31]

Case Law Cited
Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, [2019] 6 SCR 950 : (2019) 14 SCC 81; State
of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Linde India Limited & Anr, [2022]
17 SCR 858 : (2022) 107 GSTR 381 - Relied on.
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private
Limited, [2002] Supp. 4 SCR 517 : (2003) 2 SCC 111;
May George v. Tahsildar, [2010] 7 SCR 204 : (2010)
13 SCC 98 - Referred to.
Dev Dutt v. Union of India : [2008] 8 SCR 174 : (2008)
8 SCC 725 - Distinguished.

List of Acts
Constitution of India; All India Services (Performance Appraisal
Report) Rules, 2007.

List of Keywords
IAS Officer; Effect of non-adherence of timelines; Power of High
Court under Art. 226.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3959 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2019 of the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.317 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Lokesh Sinhal, Alok Sangwan, Sr. A.A.Gs., Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G.,
Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., Samar Vijay Singh, Nikunj Gupta, Sumit
Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Vaibhav Yadav, Shivang Jain, Ms.
Payal Gupta, Ms. Nitikaa Guptha, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som,
Fateh Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 395

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

Shreenath A. Khemka, Ganesh A. Khemka, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha,
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Introduction1
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal preferred by the State of Haryana seeks to
assail the correctness of an order dated 18.03.2019 passed by
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (the “High Court”) in a
writ petition bearing number CWP 317 of 2019 (O&M) wherein the
High Court set aside an order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (the
“CAT”) and, accordingly (i) expunged the opinion of the Accepting
Authority; and (ii) restored (a) the opinion of the Reviewing Authority;
and (b) the grade awarded by the Reviewing Authority i.e., 9.92
qua Respondent No. 1’s performance appraisal report under the
provisions of the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report)
Rules, 2007 (the “PAR Rules”) (the “Impugned Order”).
Factual Matrix
3. On 07.06.2017, Respondent No. 1 i.e., an Indian Administrative
Services (“IAS”) Officer belonging to the batch of 1991 and presently
holding the rank of Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana,
submitted his self-appraisal form qua the annual performance
appraisal report envisaged under the PAR Rules for the period
commencing 08.04.2016 up until 31.03.2017 (the “PAR”).
4. Thereafter on 08.06.2017, Respondent No. 1 came to be appraised
by the Reporting Authority i.e., the Chief Secretary, Government
of Haryana and, accordingly came to be awarded, inter alia, an
overall grade of 8.22. Subsequently on 27.06.2017, a divergent view
was taken by the Reviewing Authority i.e., the Health Minister of

1 NOTE: For ease of reference any capitalised terms used but not defined hereinafter, shall have the
meaning ascribed to such term under the All-India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules,
2007.
396 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Haryana who upgraded Respondent No. 1’s overall grade to ‘9.92’.
On 31.12.2017, the Accepting Authority i.e., the Chief Minister of
Haryana rejected the aforesaid and downgraded Respondent No.
1’s overall grade to ‘9’ in the PAR.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, Respondent No. 1 made a representation
under Rule 9(2) of the PAR Rules on 12.01.2018 seeking, inter alia,
the (i) quashing of the remarks and overall grading recorded by
the Accepting Authority; and (ii) restoration of remarks and overall
grading awarded by the Reviewing Authority (the “Underlying
Representation”).
6. Pursuant to the Underlying Representation, additional remark(s)
were submitted by (i) the Reporting Authority on 5.02.2018; and (ii)
the Reviewing Authority on 12.02.2018, to the Accepting Authority
for further action under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules. Despite the
aforesaid, no decision was taken by the Accepting Authority qua the
Underlying Representation.
7. Accordingly, aggrieved by the inaction vis-à-vis the Underlying
Representation, Respondent No. 1 preferred an application bearing
number O.A. No. 60/1058/2018 before the CAT seeking deletion of
the remarks and overall grades recorded by the Accepting Authority;
and restoration of the overall grades and remarks awarded by the
Reviewing Authority in the PAR (the “OA”). Vide an order dated
03.12.2018, the CAT dismissed the OA relying upon Rule 5(1) of the
PAR Rules read with Paragraph 9.4 of Appendix -II of the ‘General
Guidelines for Filing-Up the PAR Form for IAS Officers Except
the Level of Secretary or Additional Secretary or Equivalent to the
Government of India’ (the “Guidelines”) (the “CAT Order”). The
operative paragraph(s) of the CAT Order are reproduced as under:
"7. A co-joint reading of the aforementioned rule and
guideline makes it clear that, they provide a window, by
not having a barring clause on the Accepting Authority
recording remarks beyond the prescribed time limit,
and have actually set a date of 31st December of the
year in which the financial year ended as the time limit
for recording PAR. Thus, the limit fixed for writing the
appraisal report by various authorities, in the Schedule
2, is the minimum or ideal period within which the
remarks are required to be made. Further, if the PAR
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 397

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

is not recorded by 31st December of the yar in which
the financial year ended, no remarks shall be recorded
thereafter. We note that the for the financial year
2016-2017, the period under report challenged by the
applicant, 31.12.2017 would be the ultimate time limit
for recording PAR and the outer limit of time, beyond
which no remarks can be made in the appraisal report.
8. A perusal of Annexure A-1 reflects that the appraisal
report of the applicant by the Accepting Authority was
written on 31.12.2017 and was written well within
the limit prescribed under the relevant Rule 5(1) and
guideline 9.4. Applicant appears to have overlooked
the applicability of these two rules while presenting
his case to the Bench for expunging the remarks and
over-all grade recorded by the Accepting Authority.”
8. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 preferred a writ petition before the
High Court. Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court set-aside the
CAT Order observing, inter alia, that (i) the Accepting Authority failed to
appreciate the various practical constraints faced by Respondent No.
1 i.e., an upright, intelligent and honest officer, in the discharge of his
duties; (ii) that the Reviewing Authority revised the Reporting Authority’s
overall grading qua Respondent No. 1 in a transparent, fair and reasoned
manner; and (iii) that the Underlying Representation had still not been
decided by the Accepting Authority. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid
the overall grades and remarks awarded by the Reviewing Authority to
Respondent No. 1 in the PAR came to be resorted by the High Court.
Submissions
9. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Appellant submitted before this Court that the timelines prescribed
under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules were met by the State of Haryana
in respect of Respondent No. 1’s PAR. Accordingly, it was submitted
that no prejudice was caused to Respondent No. 1 merely on account
of a delay vis-à-vis the timelines prescribed under Schedule 2 of the
Guidelines issued under the PAR Rules (the “Schedule”). In this
regard, our attention was drawn to the performance appraisal report(s)
of Respondent No.1 dated (i) 24.09.2015; (ii) 30.12.2016; and (iii)
28.12.2018 whereunder no grievance was raised by Respondent No.
1, nor any allegation of prejudice was levelled against the Appellant.
398 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10. Further, Mr. Rohatgi drew the attention of this Court to Section V
of the PAR. In this context, it was submitted that the Accepting
Authority i.e., the Chief Minister of Haryana, knew the performance
and achievement of all senior IAS officers serving the Government
of Haryana; and accordingly revised the overall grades and remarks
awarded to Respondent No. 1 in an impartial and objective manner.
Additionally, Mr. Rohatgi submitted that the overall grade ‘9’ forms
a part of the ‘outstanding’ grade and is more than sufficient for
the purposes of empanelment / promotion of Respondent No. 1.
Thus, it is his submission that no prejudice could have been said
to have been caused to Respondent No. 1 in the present case as
he was awarded grades in consonance with a recommendation for
empanelment / promotion.
11. Finally, Mr. Rohatgi contended that the Underlying Representation
is pending consideration before the Accepting Authority; and that
the grievance of Respondent No. 1 would be considered by the
Accepting Authority as per the procedure envisaged under the PAR
Rules. In the aforementioned context, it was stressed that the High
Court ought not to have interfered and set-aside the CAT Order vide
the Impugned Order.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Shreenath A. Khemka, Learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, submitted that the timelines
prescribed under the Schedule are sacrosanct. Accordingly, it was
submitted that upon the expiry of the timelines enumerated under
the Schedule, the Accepting Authority could not have submitted
revised the remarks and / or the overall grades awarded by the
Reviewing Authority.
13. Further, it was vehemently contended before us that the Accepting
Authority had acted arbitrarily and without appreciating the material(s)
on record, it proceeded to downgrade the overall grade awarded to
Respondent No. 1 from ‘9.92’ to ‘9’. In this regard, it was contended
that the Accepting Authority had acted in contravention of the
principles enunciated by this Court in Dev Dutt v. Union of India,
(2008) 8 SCC 725.
14. Lastly, Mr. Khemka submitted that prejudice has been caused to
Respondent No. 1 on account of the non-decision qua the Underlying
Representation under Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules; coupled with the
fact that Respondent No. 1 is in the sunset of his service i.e., having
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 399

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

a tenure of only 1 (one) year of service left before his superannuation.
Accordingly, in the totality of circumstances, it was submitted that
the Impugned Order ought not to be set-aside.
Analysis
15. We have heard the counsel(s) appearing on behalf of the parties and
perused the material on record. There can be no controversy qua the
factum that the timelines prescribed under the Schedule have been
contravened. In this regard it would be pertinent to reproduce the
key-timeline(s) prescribed under the PAR Rules vis-à-vis the dates
of actual compliance by the relevant authority(ies):
# PARTICULARS CUT-OFF PRESCRIBED ACTUAL ACTUAL
DATE TIME FRAME* DATE OF DAYS
COMPLIANCE TAKEN**
1. Blank PAR 01.06.2017 - - -
Form to Be
Given to
The Officer
Reported Upon
2. Filing In Section 15.06.2017 15 Days 07.07.2017 7 Days
II by The Officer
Reported Upon
3. Appraisal By 15.07.2017 30 Days 08.07.2017 1 Days
Reporting
Authority
4. Appraisal By 15.08.2017 30 Days 27.07.2017 19 Days
Reviewing
Authority
5. Appraisal By 15.09.2017 30 Days 31.12.2017 184 Days
Accepting
Authority
6. Disclosure 30.09.2017 15 Days 31.12.2017 0 Days
To the Officer
Reported Upon
7. Comments 15.10.2017 15 Days 12.01.2018 12 Days
Of the Officer
Reported Upon,
If Any (If None,
Transmission of
The PAR to the
DOPT)
400 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8. Forwarding 31.10.2017 15 Days - -
Of Comments
of The Officer
Reported
Upon to The
Reviewing and
The Reporting
Authority, In
Case the Officer
Reported
Upon Makes
Comments
9. Comments 15.11.2017 15 Days 05.02.2018 24 Days
Of Reporting
Authority
10. Comments 30.11.2017 15 Days 12.02.2018 7 Days
Of Reviewing
Authority
11. Comments 15.12.2017 15 Days No Decision -
Of Accepting
Authority/PAR
to Be Finalized
and Disclosed
to Him
12. Representation 31.12.2017 15 Days - -
to the Referral
Board by the
officer reported
upon
13. Forwarding of 31.01.2018 30 Days - -
representation
to the Referral
Board along
with the
comments
of reporting
Authority/
reviewing
Authority and
accepting
Authority
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 401

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

14. Finalization by 28.02.2018 30 Days - -
Referral Board
if the officer
reported of
the Accepting
Authority.
15. Disclosure 15.03.2018 15 Days - -
to the officer
reported upon
16. End of entire 31.03.2018 15 Days - -
PAR process
*Approximated on a 30-days-to-a-month basis
**Actual day(s) taken from compliance of the previous stage.

16. Upon a perusal of the aforesaid, undoubtedly, and admittedly the
Accepting Authority populated its remarks and awarded an overall
grade on 31.12.2017 i.e., after a delay of 184 (one hundred eighty-four)
days. Accordingly, we must now consider the effect of a contravention
of the timelines prescribed under the Schedule in view of Rule 5(1)
of the PAR Rules. For ease of reference Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules
is reproduced as under:
“Rule 5(1): Performance Appraisal Reports: - (1) A
performance appraisal report assessing the performance,
character, conduct and qualities of every member of the
Service shall be written for each financial year or as may
be specified by the Government in the Schedule 2.
Provided that performance appraisal report may not be
written in such cases as may be specified by the Central
Government, by general or special order.
Provided further that if a PAR relating to a financial year
is not recorded by the 31st December of the year in which
the financial year ended, no remarks shall be recorded
thereafter. And the officer may be assessed on the basis
of the overall record and self-assessment for the year, if
he has submitted his self-assessment on time.”
17. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to a decision of this Court
in Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003)
2 SCC 111 wherein this Court whilst weighing the consideration(s)
402 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

qua the mandatory nature of timelines prescribed upon a public
functionary observed as under:
“42. We are not oblivious of the law that when a public
functionary is required to do a certain thing within a
specified time, the same is ordinarily directory but it is
equally well settled that when consequence for inaction on
the part of the statutory authorities within such specified
time is expressly provided, it must be held to be imperative.”
18. Furthermore, this Court in May George v. Tahsildar, (2010) 13 SCC
98 devised a test qua the mandatory nature of an obligation emanating
from a provision of law. In this regard, this Court observed as under:
“25. The law on this issue can be summarised to the
effect that in order to declare a provision mandatory, the
test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance with
the provision could render the entire proceedings invalid
or not. Whether the provision is mandatory or directory,
depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the
language for which the intent is clothed. The issue is to be
examined having regard to the context, subject-matter and
object of the statutory provisions in question. The Court
may find out as to what would be the consequence which
would flow from construing it in one way or the other and
as to whether the statute provides for a contingency of
the non-compliance with the provisions and as to whether
the non-compliance is visited by small penalty or serious
consequence would flow therefrom and as to whether
a particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the
legislation and if the provision is mandatory, the act done
in breach thereof will be invalid.”
19. In this context we must now consider the implication and / or
outcome (if any) of a contravention of the timeline(s) prescribed
under the Schedule. A perusal of the PAR Rules would reveal that a
contravention of the said timelines, neither render the underlying PAR
invalid, nor would be met with any identified immediate consequence.
The aforesaid interpretation is also supported by the empirical data
i.e., previous performance appraisal report(s) of Respondent No. 1
which were admittedly beyond the timelines prescribed under the
Schedule, however within the period prescribed under Rule 5(1) of
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 403

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

the PAR Rules. Furthermore, even though the High Court vide the
Impugned Order, set-aside the CAT Order, the High Court observed
that the timelines prescribed under the Schedule were not water-tight
and in fact, were flexible.
20. Thus, we find ourselves unable to accept the contention raised by Mr.
Khemka i.e., that the Accepting Authority was either precluded from
populating its comment(s) after the cut- off date as more particularly
identified at Serial Number 5 in Table 1 above; or that upon the expiry
of the cut-off date, the Reviewing Authority’s comments would be
deemed to have been adopted by the Accepting Authority.
21. Admittedly, the Accepting Authority has met the timelines prescribed
under Rule 5(1) of the PAR Rules and accordingly, in view of the
compliance with mandatory timelines prescribed under the PAR
Rules we find no reason to expunge the remarks and overall grades
awarded to Respondent No. 1 by the Accepting Authority on the PAR
on account of a contravention of the timelines prescribed under the
Schedule.
22. Now we turn our attention to the fulcrum of the dispute before this
Court i.e., whether the High Court ought to have interfered with the
CAT Order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India?
23. At the outset we would like to deal with Respondent No. 1’s reliance
on Dev Dutt (Supra). The said case underscored the importance
of, inter alia, communicating entries of evaluation to the candidate,
irrespective of whether such evaluation was adverse in the eyes of
the assessing entity i.e., the Court stressed the fact that in matters
of selection and promotion, a comparative lens must be adopted
whereunder the adverse nature of an evaluation must be contingent
not only on whether such evaluation would have an adverse impact
on the candidate but also whether it would affect the candidates’
chances of promotion to the next category.
24. In this context, although it was submitted by Mr. Khemka that prejudice
has been caused to Respondent No. 1, we find ourselves unable to
accept the said contention on account of the fact that Respondent
No. 1 was awarded an overall grade ‘9’ which undisputedly forms
a part of the ‘outstanding’ grade i.e., the highest category awarded
to an IAS officer. Accordingly, in our opinion there can be no qualm
that the said overall grade is more than sufficient for the purposes
404 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of empanelment / promotion vis-à-vis Respondent No. 1. Thus,
the reliance placed on Dev Dutt (Supra) by Respondent No. 1 is
misplaced in the present factual matrix.
25. Now, turning to the issue framed in Paragraph 22 of this Judgement
above, we find ourselves grappling with a foundational principle of
our constitution i.e., that the judiciary must exercise restraint and
avoid unnecessary intervention qua administrative decision(s) of
the executive involving specialised expertise in the absence of any
mala-fide and / or prejudice. In this regard it would be appropriate
to refer to our decision in Caretel Infotech Ltd. v. Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2019) 14 SCC 81 whereunder this Court
observed as under:
“38….It has been cautioned that Constitutional Courts
are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with
the administrative decision and ought not to substitute
their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere
disagreement with the decision-making process would
not suffice.”
26. Similarly, this Court in State of Jharkhand v. Linde India Ltd., (2022)
107 GSTR 381 whilst delineating the scope of interference of the
High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India vis-à-vis a finding of fact by experts observed as under:
“7. As per the settled position of law, the High Court in
exercise of powers under article 226 of the Constitution
of India is not sitting as an appellate court against the
findings recorded on appreciation of facts and the evidence
on record. The High Court ought to have appreciated that
there was a detailed inspection report by a six members
committee who after detailed enquiry and inspection and
considering the process of manufacture of steel specifically
came to the conclusion that the work of oxygen is only of
a “refining agent” and its main function is to reduce the
carbon content as per the requirement. The said findings
accepted by the assessing officer and confirmed up to the
Joint Commissioner-revisional authority were not required
to be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of powers
under article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court lacks
the expertise on deciding the disputed questions and more
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 405

The State of Haryana v. Ashok Khemka & Anr. `

particularly the technical aspect which could have been
left to the committee consisting of experts.”
27. The overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires
an in-depth understanding of various facets of an administrative
functionary such as personality traits, tangible and quantifiable
professional parameters which may include inter alia the competency
and ability to execute projects; adaptability; problem-solving and
decision-making skills; planning and implementation capabilities; and
the skill to formulate and evaluate strategy. The aforesaid indicative
parameters are typically then analysed by adopting a specialised
evaluation matrix and thereafter, synthesised by a competent
authority to award an overall grade to the candidate at the end of
the appraisal / evaluation. Accordingly, in our considered view, the
process of evaluation of an IAS officer, more so a senior IAS officer
entails a depth of expertise, rigorous and robust understanding of
the evaluation matrix coupled with nuanced understanding of the
proficiency required to be at the forefront of the bureaucracy. This
administrative oversight ought to have been left to the executive
on account of it possessing the requisite expertise and mandate
for the said task.
28. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the High Court entered into a
specialised domain i.e., evaluating the competency of an IAS officer
by way of contrasting and comparing the remarks and overall grades
awarded to Respondent No. 1 by (i) the Reporting Authority; (ii) the
Reviewing Authority; and (iii) the Accepting Authority, without the
requisite domain expertise and administrative experience to conduct
such an evaluation. The High Court ought not to have ventured into
the said domain particularly when the Accepting Authority is yet to
pronounce its decision qua the Underlying Representation.
Conclusion
29. Given this backdrop, we are of the opinion that the learned Division
Bench of the High Court erred in law. Accordingly, we set aside the
judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court. Additionally, as
we have been informed that the Accepting Authority is yet to take a
decision on the Underlying Representation, we direct the Accepting
Authority to take a decision on the Underlying Representation under
Rule 9(7B) of the PAR Rules within a period of 60 (sixty) days from
the date of pronouncement of this Judgement. Thereafter, Respondent
406 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

No. 1 is granted liberty to take recourse to remedies as may be
available under law.
30. Before parting we must place on record our appreciation for Mr.
Shreenath A. Khemka, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1, for the spirited and able assistance rendered
to the Court.
31. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of. No order as to cost(s).

Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor Appeal allowed.
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)