Executive decision-making in public appointments must adhere to public law and Constitutional standards, including the necessity of intellectual objectivity and a discernable rationale for decisions.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.:--

1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India questions the correctness of an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereafter “CAT”] in O.A. No. 4231/2011 and O.A. No. 4560/2011 dated 24.09.2013. The CAT negatived challenges to the decisions of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (“ACC”) dated 8.4.2009 and 15.11.2011, denying promotion to the petitioner to the grade of Scientist “G” (and promoting certain others).

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is a Master of Technology, having graduated from IIT in 1982. He joined Central Government service in the grade of Scientist “C” in what is now the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, on 16.4.1987 (“DoE”). The Petitioner was promoted to the grades of Scientist “D”, “E” and “F” on 2.1.1992, 19.4.1998, and 24.1.2001, respectively.

3. Through a notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) on 9.11.1998, the “Flexible Complementing Scheme” for promotion was made applicable to the petitioner’s department. An Annexure to the Notification, defined “scientists” and “engineers” as follows:

“They should be engaged in research, design, development or programme implementation (including review, analysis, promotion and aspects of science policy, etc.) which would cover a broad spectrum of pure and applied research but the essential feature would be innovative character and spirit of enquiry that permeates their overall functioning.”

4. The Annexure also defined Scientific Activities and Services which included, inter alia:

“(c) Experimental Development: Use of scientific knowledge directed towards producing new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, processes, systems or services.

(d) S&T activities which are directly linked to R&D in terms of promoting the scientific activities and services.”

5. It further clarified the meaning of scientists and engineers in the following terms:

“a. who possess academic qualification of at least Master’s degree in Natural/Agricultural Science or Bachelor’s Degree in Electronics/Technology/Medicine and

b. working in those capacities, use or create scientific knowledge, and engineering and technological principles i.e. persons with scientific or technological training who are engaged in professional work on S&T activities, high level administrators who plan, direct or co-ordinate the execution of S& T activities.”

6. Annexure-II, which contained the recruitment and promotion rules, stated that:

“Field Experience in Research and Development and/or Experience in implementation of such scientific projects is compulsory for promotion of scientists recruited to the posts in the Secretariat of the Scientific Ministries/Departments to higher grades under FCS. Field Experience of at least 2 years and 5 years respectively will be essential for promotion to Scientist “F” and Scientist “G” grades respectively.”

7. The process of promotion from Scientist “F” to Scientist “G” was also listed. It was a two-step process, and took the following path:

“i. Screening by Screening Committee (Para (a) of Annexure-Il of DoPT OM dated 9-11-1998 (Anne P- 6): All officers are first screened on the basis of gradings in the Annual Confidential Reports for consideration for promotion. The ACRs are assessed on a 10-point scale. Only those officers who satisfy the minimum residency period linked to their performance as indicated in the table in the above said Annexure-Il are ‘Screened-in’.

ii. Selection by Selection Committee (Para (c) of Annexure-Il of DoPT OM dated 9-11-1998 (Anne P- 6): All officers who are ‘screened-in’ by the Screening Committee are called for interview/assessment by the Selection Committee which assesses their suitability for promotion under FCS, i.e. suitability with respect to all criteria under FCS including suitability with respect to ‘Field Experience’ and ‘Innovative Work’. The performance in the interview is graded similarly on a 10 point s